Ken Boyer: Overlooked for HOF?
Mike
Ken Boyer won 5 Gold Gloves, and probably would have won 2-3 more if
it wasn't for the fact that Ron Santo came along to give Boyer plenty
of competition at the hot corner. Boyer also won the 1964 MVP award,
hitting 24 home runs and knocking in 119 RBI's, and was a huge factor
in the Cardinals 1964 World Champion team.
In 15 seasons, Ken Boyer hit 282 home runs, and drove in 1141 runs
while hitting 287 lifetime. From 1958-1964, Ken averaged 26 home runs
and 101 runs batted in per year. So why isn't he in the HOF?
I think the biggest reason is that once again, the longetivity factor
has reared it's ugly head. Ken Boyer only played 15 seasons, and his
last really good season was at age 33.
But even though Boyer's career wasn't long enough to get the "magic"
numbers seen as worthy for induction (400HRs, 3000 hits, etc), WHY
should he be kept out? He was truly one of the best Third Basemen
ever! And if Bill Mazeroski is in, why not Ken Boyer?
Dannysprung
>ever! And if Bill Mazeroski is in, why not Ken Boyer?
If Ron Santo is not in, then why Boyer?
Danny
JPM III
He just wasn't the famed player that others were. No fault of his own. This
may be the same reason that keeps Garrett Anderson out of the hall of fame.
If you keep your mouth shut and play the game as you should, you don't make
the headlines like the big-mouths do, and you join the club of most
underrated players in history.
Dale Murphy, anyone? Since when are 398 homers and back-to-back MVP awards
not good enough for Cooperstown?
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
One HOF-er in his top ten similar batters, Duke Snider, and it took
him awhile to get there. Ellis Burks is 10th, and J** C***** is 1st.
Remembering their roles in Nolan Ryan's 7th no-hitter (Carter with the
only 2 walks, and Burks being absolutely destroyed by repeated
up-and-in fastballs), I am really starting to wonder about these
similarity scores. :-)
Ron Santo is 4th. Do these similarity scores take into account park
and era differences?
Tom
David Marc Nieporent
Tom MacIntyre <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:27:29 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Mike <news:7cfd37d2.04053...@posting.google.com>:
>>> But even though Boyer's career wasn't long enough to get the "magic"
>>> numbers seen as worthy for induction (400HRs, 3000 hits, etc), WHY
>>> should he be kept out? He was truly one of the best Third Basemen
>>> ever! And if Bill Mazeroski is in, why not Ken Boyer?
>>He just wasn't the famed player that others were. No fault of his own. This
>>may be the same reason that keeps Garrett Anderson out of the hall of fame.
Yes; also, the fact that he isn't very good. Garret Anderson is about as
much a Hall of Famer as Garret Morris is.
>>If you keep your mouth shut and play the game as you should, you don't make
>>the headlines like the big-mouths do, and you join the club of most
>>underrated players in history.
>>Dale Murphy, anyone? Since when are 398 homers and back-to-back MVP awards
>>not good enough for Cooperstown?
>One HOF-er in his top ten similar batters, Duke Snider, and it took
>him awhile to get there. Ellis Burks is 10th, and J** C***** is 1st.
>Remembering their roles in Nolan Ryan's 7th no-hitter (Carter with the
>only 2 walks, and Burks being absolutely destroyed by repeated
>up-and-in fastballs), I am really starting to wonder about these
>similarity scores. :-)
Huh? Burks had nothing to do with Ryan's no-hitter.
> Ron Santo is 4th. Do these similarity scores take into account park
>and era differences?
No.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Tom MacIntyre
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <dk8nb05au8ht2fiqu...@4ax.com>,
> Tom MacIntyre <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>One HOF-er in his top ten similar batters, Duke Snider, and it took
>>him awhile to get there. Ellis Burks is 10th, and J** C***** is 1st.
>>Remembering their roles in Nolan Ryan's 7th no-hitter (Carter with the
>>only 2 walks, and Burks being absolutely destroyed by repeated
>>up-and-in fastballs), I am really starting to wonder about these
>>similarity scores. :-)
>
>Huh? Burks had nothing to do with Ryan's no-hitter.
My memory, my memory...okay, I am thinking of someone else. Who, I
have no idea. :-(
Tom
Mike
I'm not saying Santo shouldn't be in. I think Santo belongs in right
now. But so does Ken Boyer.
Both men in my opinion have been overlooked for HOF induction.
I suppose if Santo eventually gets in, then people will take a harder
look at Ken Boyer.
Mike
I think it's more than that. There are several players who are
penalized for HOF induction because they only played 14-15 seasons.
Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Ron Santo, Ron Guidry, etc.
If any of these guys had played 5-6 more seasons, they probably would
have accumulated the enough lifetime "numbers" to make induction.
Boyer would have had 350+ home runs, Santo would have hit over 400,
Colavito may have reached 500, etc
But since all these guys didn't hold up for 20+ year careers, they
have been unfairly penalized from entry into the hall.
Mike
I also wonder how much Ken Boyer's chances would have been helped if
He'd been part of the 1967-68 Cards teams. (he left St. Louis after
the 65 season)
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: If any of these guys had played 5-6 more seasons, they probably would
: have accumulated the enough lifetime "numbers" to make induction.
: Boyer would have had 350+ home runs, Santo would have hit over 400,
: Colavito may have reached 500, etc
: But since all these guys didn't hold up for 20+ year careers, they
: have been unfairly penalized from entry into the hall.
We've been over this before....
1. The main reason that Colovito and Boyer didn't make have very long
careers is because they weren't good enough. Longevity is mostly a
function of quality.
2. To the extent that longevity is a valuable quality of its own, it
obviously should be rewarded; Yaz was more valuable than similar-peaked
Kiner because Yaz lasted forever, which had real value to the Red Sox.
So: Boyer was a good player in his prime, but not nearly as good as most
actual Hall of Famers -- which is *why* he had a relatively short career.
But to the extent that there may be some Boyer-but-with-longer-career
types in the HOF, they're there because they actually did something that
Boyer didn't do; they helped their teams when Boyer was retired.
There's a lot of talk about how certain statistical markers put players
into the HOF, but most of that talk has it backwards; players get to those
markers because they are HOFers, not the other way around.
JHB
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: I also wonder how much Ken Boyer's chances would have been helped if
: He'd been part of the 1967-68 Cards teams. (he left St. Louis after
: the 65 season)
A bit. I think he's overrated as a HOF candidate as is, and that would
have made him a bit more overrated.
JHB
Steve Grant
news:7cfd37d2.04060...@posting.google.com...
>
> I think it's more than that. There are several players who are
> penalized for HOF induction because they only played 14-15 seasons.
> Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Ron Santo, Ron Guidry, etc.
>
> If any of these guys had played 5-6 more seasons, they probably would
> have accumulated the enough lifetime "numbers" to make induction.
>
> Boyer would have had 350+ home runs, Santo would have hit over 400,
> Colavito may have reached 500, etc
>
> But since all these guys didn't hold up for 20+ year careers, they
> have been unfairly penalized from entry into the hall.
What exactly do you consider "unfair" about it?
marty mcmahone
"Realto Margarino" <boo...@eewwww.org> wrote in message
news:OY9vc.20608$Hn.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > So: Boyer was a good player in his prime, but not nearly as good
> > as most actual Hall of Famers -- which is *why* he had a
> > relatively short career.
>
> prime had lasted a little longer he would have icome closer to
> winning more MVPs. But at his best, Boyer was certainly good
> enough for the HoF.
So last year ARod was the best player in the American League?
>
M. Zaiem Beg
->If you keep your mouth shut and play the game as you should, you don't make
->the headlines like the big-mouths do, and you join the club of most
->underrated players in history.
Which is precisely why Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Tony Gwynn, and Cal
Ripken Jr. have no shot at the Hall of Fame. None.
--
M. Zaiem Beg zb...@iglou.com
JPM III
> > own. This may be the same reason that keeps Garrett Anderson out of
> > the hall of fame. If you keep your mouth shut and play the game as
> > you should, you don't make the headlines like the big-mouths do,
> > and you join the club of most underrated players in history.
>
> I think it's more than that. There are several players who are
> penalized for HOF induction because they only played 14-15 seasons.
> Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Ron Santo, Ron Guidry, etc.
>
> If any of these guys had played 5-6 more seasons, they probably would
> have accumulated the enough lifetime "numbers" to make induction.
>
> Boyer would have had 350+ home runs, Santo would have hit over 400,
> Colavito may have reached 500, etc
>
> But since all these guys didn't hold up for 20+ year careers, they
> have been unfairly penalized from entry into the hall.
Alberte Belle says hello. Dale Murphy's still hanging out.
JPM III
In that case, Eddie Murray was never really a hall of famer. He just played
forever and played consistently. He never hit more than 33 homers in a
season that I know of. But hitting an average of 25+ for 20 seasons is all
you need for 500+.
Ryne Sandberg, in my opinion, *is* a hall of famer. He had all the tools of
a great baseball player, and he stood out as second base as much as Cal
Ripken used to at shortstop. But his early retirement and attempted comeback
have put a stain on his HOF application. :-P
JPM III
That makes absolutely no sense.
JPM III
> j...@socrates.berkeley.edu trolled:
>
> > We've been over this before....
>
> > 1. The main reason that Colovito and Boyer didn't make have very
> > long careers is because they weren't good enough. Longevity is
> > mostly a function of quality.
>
It's a little of both -- health and quality. You won't last if you don't
stay healthy, and you won't last if you don't keep competing. Of course, if
you choose to take a paycut instead of commanding your long-earned premium
salary, then you may be able to stick around at a bargain price (which would
be appropriate for your playing level in many cases), and perhaps reach
those higher milestones that would guarantee your induction into the HOF.
> > So: Boyer was a good player in his prime, but not nearly as good
> > as most actual Hall of Famers -- which is *why* he had a
> > relatively short career.
>
> Well, he won an MVP. You can't do any better than that. If his
> prime had lasted a little longer he would have icome closer to
> winning more MVPs. But at his best, Boyer was certainly good
> enough for the HoF.
Terry Pendleton won an MVP, and I'm pretty sure he's no HOF'er.
> > But to the extent that there may be some
> > Boyer-but-with-longer-career types in the HOF, they're there
> > because they actually did something that Boyer didn't do; they
> > helped their teams when Boyer was retired.
>
> Nonsense. Many, many, HoF players have hung on too long and
> actually hurt their teams at the end of their careers.
Playing poorly *and* commanding high salaries that they no longer deserve.
It's a double whammy in many cases.
> > There's a lot of talk about how certain statistical markers put
> > players into the HOF, but most of that talk has it backwards;
> > players get to those markers because they are HOFers, not the
> > other way around.
>
> It may be true that longevity is a factor in HoF consideration.
> But Boyer was clearly good enough at his peak that if he had had
> better genes, he would have been able to play longer and he would
> be in the HoF.
>
> IOW, the only reason Boyer didn't make it is because of his aging
> genes.
IMO, Boyer didn't make it because he doesn't belong there. 287/349/473 with
only 282 homers isn't a HOF career.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU <news:c9j91s$11dq$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>:
:> There's a lot of talk about how certain statistical markers put
:> players into the HOF, but most of that talk has it backwards; players
:> get to those markers because they are HOFers, not the other way
:> around.
: In that case, Eddie Murray was never really a hall of famer. He just played
: forever and played consistently. He never hit more than 33 homers in a
: season that I know of. But hitting an average of 25+ for 20 seasons is all
: you need for 500+.
Just plain not true. Murray's career was famously peakless, but that
doesn't mean he wasn't very, very good. Unlike, say, Rafael Palmiero,
Murray was thought to be a future HOFer early in his career -- his age 30
season was 1986, and I'd guess that if you took a poll then, practically
everyone would have picked him as a HOFer.
Moreover, lasting a long time, as I said, *is* something that should be
rewarded.
Murray wound up with big statistical markers (>300 hits, >500 HRs) because
he had HOF quality. Had he been a worse player, either in on-field
quality or durability, he wouldn't have reached those markers.
: Ryne Sandberg, in my opinion, *is* a hall of famer. He had all the tools of
: a great baseball player, and he stood out as second base as much as Cal
: Ripken used to at shortstop. But his early retirement and attempted comeback
: have put a stain on his HOF application. :-P
He's going to go in, so he'll wind up on the other side of the argument.
JHB
David Marc Nieporent
>> He just wasn't the famed player that others were. No fault of his own. This
>> may be the same reason that keeps Garrett Anderson out of the hall of fame.
>> If you keep your mouth shut and play the game as you should, you don't make
>> the headlines like the big-mouths do, and you join the club of most
>> underrated players in history.
>I think it's more than that. There are several players who are
>penalized for HOF induction because they only played 14-15 seasons.
>Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Ron Santo, Ron Guidry, etc.
>If any of these guys had played 5-6 more seasons, they probably would
>have accumulated the enough lifetime "numbers" to make induction.
>Boyer would have had 350+ home runs, Santo would have hit over 400,
>Colavito may have reached 500, etc
>But since all these guys didn't hold up for 20+ year careers, they
>have been unfairly penalized from entry into the hall.
What exactly is "unfair" about it? How is it "penalizing" someone to rate
them lower than someone who was better?
They didn't "hold up" because they *weren't good enough.* There are a few
players for whom that isn't true -- Sandy Koufax, for instance, or Kirby
Puckett (at least he's perceived to be) -- and they *did* get into the Hall.
TJNawrocki
: JPM III <jpmc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:: j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU <news:c9j91s$11dq$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>:
::> There's a lot of talk about how certain statistical markers put
::> players into the HOF, but most of that talk has it backwards; players
::> get to those markers because they are HOFers, not the other way
::> around.
:: In that case, Eddie Murray was never really a hall of famer. He just played
:: forever and played consistently. He never hit more than 33 homers in a
:: season that I know of. But hitting an average of 25+ for 20 seasons is all
:: you need for 500+.
: Just plain not true. Murray's career was famously peakless, but that
: doesn't mean he wasn't very, very good. Unlike, say, Rafael Palmiero,
: Murray was thought to be a future HOFer early in his career -- his age 30
: season was 1986, and I'd guess that if you took a poll then, practically
: everyone would have picked him as a HOFer.
From 1981 to 1985, Murray finished 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th in the MVP
voting. (He threw in three other Top Ten finishes in his career.)
Five straight top-five finishes in MVP voting is probably more impressive than
two MVPs. I'd be surprised if there was anyone with five straight Top Fives who
isn't in the Hall of Fame.
Tom Nawrocki
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
>M. Zaiem Beg <news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0406012321280.14245-100000@shell1>:
It does in the context in which it was, I believe, intended.
Tom
Danil
>
> Five straight top-five finishes in MVP voting is probably more impressive
> than two MVPs. I'd be surprised if there was anyone with five straight
> Top Fives who isn't in the Hall of Fame.
Sample size: there just aren't all that many five straight Top Fives:
Yogi Berra (1950-56)
Barry Bonds (1990-1994)
Lou Gehrig (1931-1937)
Eddie Murray (1981-1985)
Stan Musial (1948-1952)
Eddie Collins (1913-1924??)
If you lift the consecutive years restriction, you pick up:
Hank Aaron
Joe DiMaggio
Harmon Killebrew
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Jim Rice
Frank Robinson
Ted Williams
Danil
Mpoconnor7
>
>It's a little of both -- health and quality. You won't last if you don't
>stay healthy, and you won't last if you don't keep competing.
I think Luck is a factor also; some players suffer unlucky breaks. Who knows
what kind of career Dickie Thon would have had if he had not been hit by that
pitch? Ray Fosse was a rising star who never seemed to recover from the Rose
Collision in the 1970 ASG; he might be in the HOF today if not for that play.
You can speculate, but we'll never know for sure.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
James Mason from the movie "Heaven Can Wait".
David Marc Nieporent
>> Five straight top-five finishes in MVP voting is probably more impressive
>> than two MVPs. I'd be surprised if there was anyone with five straight
>> Top Fives who isn't in the Hall of Fame.
>Sample size: there just aren't all that many five straight Top Fives:
I think that's the point. It's an exclusive, elite group. Note that most
of the people you listed on the two lists below played in a smaller major
league, when it was therefore easier to finish in the top 5.
>Yogi Berra (1950-56)
>Barry Bonds (1990-1994)
>Lou Gehrig (1931-1937)
>Eddie Murray (1981-1985)
>Stan Musial (1948-1952)
>Eddie Collins (1913-1924??)
>If you lift the consecutive years restriction, you pick up:
>Hank Aaron
>Joe DiMaggio
>Harmon Killebrew
>Mickey Mantle
>Willie Mays
>Jim Rice
>Frank Robinson
>Ted Williams
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
TJNawrocki
: TJNawrocki says...
: Eddie Collins (1913-1924??)
I've got Reggie Jackson and Dave Parker, too. There may be a couple of others.
So of the ones who have five nonconsecutive Top Fives, you've got all Hall of
Famers plus Rice and Parker.
Of those with five straight Top Fives, it's all inner-circle Hall of Famers
plus Eddie Murray. I stand by my statement that that group is more impressive
than the consecutive-MVP club.
Tom Nawrocki
Tom MacIntyre
Williams and Mays, at least, had some unfortunate circumstances
working against them. What if military service years were wiped out?
Tom
JPM III
SportsChump
You also have P*** R*** who is not in the HOF for obvious reasons.
Also besides Bonds you have a few other actives. Frank Thomas and
Griffey.
ARod has 4 so far so I'll put good money on him joining that club and
Pujols has 3 in 3 years and could get his 4th straight this season.
Oh and assuming Bonds hits the top 5 again this will be his 2nd five
straight top 5's, and if he finishes better than 4th his overall
record for the 5 will be better than his first time(Which like his
current streak involved 3 MVP's and a 2nd place finish to go with his
4th place in 1994).
Yeah he is pretty good...
Mike
baseball longetivity is.
The fact that some players LAST longer than others is also a game of
chance as well. Some players have bodies that just wear out faster.
This was even more true years ago before the days of advanced sports
medicine.
We've given way too much respect for longetivity. If you don't think
so, look at guys like Don Sutton. He simply doesn't belong in the
HOF!! Sutton was not one of the greats in baseball history. He was an
above average pitcher who held onto his ability to keep playing long
enough for him to get over 300 wins.
Guys like Ken Boyer and Ron Santo in their primes were among the best
players at their positions in history. They may not have lasted 20+
years, but they had enough great seasons to qualify themselves for the
hall. I think if a player was truly great for 6-8 seasons then he
should be considered for the hall and not dismissed simply because he
didn't stick around for two decades and pile on impressive lifetime
stats numbers.
tjnaw...@aol.compost (TJNawrocki) wrote in message news:<20040603113145...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
Mike
Both Boyer and Santo were way better hitters than Maz, who was not
much of a hitter at all.
Probably the worst thing that happened to both Boyer and Santo is that
each was around while the other played.
If Santo had not come around, Ken Boyer probably would have won 2-3
more gold gloves, giving him 7-8 career gold gloves. Add that to his
hitting, and his MVP, and he's a HOF player easily.
tjnaw...@aol.compost (TJNawrocki) wrote in message news:<20040603113145...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
David Marc Nieporent
>I think that it's high time that we take a broader view of what
>baseball longetivity is.
>The fact that some players LAST longer than others is also a game of
>chance as well.
So's the fact that some players play better than others.
> Some players have bodies that just wear out faster.
Some players have bodies that are faster and stronger and have better
reflexes than others.
>We've given way too much respect for longetivity. If you don't think
>so, look at guys like Don Sutton.
Who are "guys like Don Sutton"?
>He simply doesn't belong in the
>HOF!! Sutton was not one of the greats in baseball history. He was an
>above average pitcher who held onto his ability to keep playing long
>enough for him to get over 300 wins.
That sounds pretty valuable. At an age when Ken Boyer wasn't helping his
team at all, Don Sutton was.
>Guys like Ken Boyer and Ron Santo in their primes were among the best
>players at their positions in history. They may not have lasted 20+
>years, but they had enough great seasons to qualify themselves for the
>hall. I think if a player was truly great for 6-8 seasons then he
>should be considered for the hall and not dismissed simply because he
>didn't stick around for two decades and pile on impressive lifetime
>stats numbers.
Fred Hargadon, Princeton's recently-retired Dean of Admissions, regularly
told this story when he went around speaking to parents of applicants:
parents would ask him, "If my child wants to maximize his chances of
admission, should he get straight As or should he take the most advanced
classes?" And Hargadon would respond: "He should do both."
The people who get into the Hall are generally the ones who are truly great
*AND* who stick around.
Ima Pseudonym
>And why is Bill Mazeroski in if Boyer and Santo are not?
1) Mazeroski was a very marginal pick. An argument based on his
being in the hall of fame is going to be very weak
2) Mazeroski is generally considered the best ever defensively at his
position, which is considered a key defensive position. Much of what
support he received was because he was the BEST in that way. Boyer
and Santo were very good players for a while, but have never been
considered the best.
3) You shouldn't group Boyer and Santo together. Santo was a much
better player. No MVP award, but despite that he had 4 seasons with
higher OPS+ than Boyer ever had, his career OPS+ was 125 versus 116
for Boyer, and he had over 1000 more plate appearances. He had the
better peak, AND better longevity.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
:>We've given way too much respect for longetivity. If you don't think
:>so, look at guys like Don Sutton.
: Who are "guys like Don Sutton"?
Here's top ERA+ seasons for Sutton and two other HOFers:
X 159 148 135 124 119 114 (plus a 75 IP 211, and a 96 IP 118)
Y 154 149 140 129 128 122 (plus a 99 IP 150)
Z 168 149 146 145 145 125
Sutton 161 159 142 127 126 120
Sutton's peak is at least similar, if not better than, these guys -- Dean,
Drysdale, and Chief Bender. But Dean did pretty much nothing else, and
the other two did little else. Sutton doesn't have a WOW peak, but he was
a very good pitcher at his best...and then he pitched forever.
[...]
: Fred Hargadon, Princeton's recently-retired Dean of Admissions, regularly
: told this story when he went around speaking to parents of applicants:
: parents would ask him, "If my child wants to maximize his chances of
: admission, should he get straight As or should he take the most advanced
: classes?" And Hargadon would respond: "He should do both."
: The people who get into the Hall are generally the ones who are truly great
: *AND* who stick around.
No, that's not true, as my examples above show. And they're hardly the
worst three HOFers.
There are plenty of Boyer-length careers in the HOF. But, except for the
clear mistakes, they were *better* careers. Boyer just wasn't that good.
There were a number of great 3Bs active within 1965-1975. Does anyone
think Boyer was as good as Schmidt or Mathews? Of course not. But then
there are a bunch of others: Santo, Robinson, Hebner, Cey, Torre, Rose,
Perez, Allen, Nettles, Bell, Evans...I'm sure I'm missing a few. Does
anyone seriously think Boyer stands out in this group? I doubt it. Does
anyone think he's better than Brooks Robinson? Than Allen? Than Rose? I
doubt it. I don't think there's much of a case for him being at the top
of the rest of them, either.
He was a good player for a short time. That's not a HOFer.
JHB
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: On 3 Jun 2004 17:52:16 -0700, MrStr...@hotmail.com (Mike) wrote:
:>And why is Bill Mazeroski in if Boyer and Santo are not?
[...]
: 3) You shouldn't group Boyer and Santo together. Santo was a much
: better player. No MVP award, but despite that he had 4 seasons with
: higher OPS+ than Boyer ever had, his career OPS+ was 125 versus 116
: for Boyer, and he had over 1000 more plate appearances. He had the
: better peak, AND better longevity.
And it's very likely that Santo will eventually be in.
JHB
Dale J. Stephenson
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:27:29 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
[...]
> >Dale Murphy, anyone? Since when are 398 homers and back-to-back MVP awards
> >not good enough for Cooperstown?
> >
>
> One HOF-er in his top ten similar batters, Duke Snider, and it took
> him awhile to get there. Ellis Burks is 10th, and J** C***** is 1st.
> Remembering their roles in Nolan Ryan's 7th no-hitter (Carter with the
> only 2 walks, and Burks being absolutely destroyed by repeated
> up-and-in fastballs), I am really starting to wonder about these
> similarity scores. :-)
>
Joe Carter being #1 in Dale Murphy's similarity scores (and vice versa)
is an excellent illustration of the limitations of similarity scores.
Here's Murphy among the centerfielders:
Key to stats:
Peak -- total offensive wins (OW) for the best five years of the player
years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total offensive wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
Years -- Games played, divided by most common games/team for each year.
@Pos -- percent of games played at this position
FR -- Career fielding runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
-- From '88-'96, fielding runs generated from DA substituted.
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Other -- % of games played at other positions. Less than 20% not listed.
OW -- Offensive Wins, (BR/A + SBR) / R/W.
R/W -- Runs per win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (1.83 * League Games)
BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TB VII.
SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.22 - CS*0.35). Not calculated for years
without caught stealing totals.
Peaks for Prominent Centerfielders
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Mickey Mantle 42.2 50s 53.0 15.3 73% -9 *
Ty Cobb 40.5 10s 73.5 19.9 72% 54 * 23% rf
Willie Mays 33.8 50s 62.0 18.9 94% 180 *
Tris Speaker 33.2 10s 51.2 18.4 96% 248 *
Joe DiMaggio 26.9 40s 23.9 11.3 94% 51 *
Duke Snider 24.7 50s 14.9 13.8 74% -62 *
Hack Wilson 22.8 20s 6.2 8.8 69% -63 * VC
DALE MURPHY 22.4 80s 1.6 13.8 48% 41 12% 34% rf
Larry Doby 19.0 50s 9.6 10.0 87% 3 * VC
Edd Roush 18.3 10s 7.6 13.0 89% 23 * VC
Billy Hamilton 17.9 1890s 14.5 11.6 62% -6 * VC 27% lf
Earl Averill 17.6 30s 7.9 10.8 88% -8 * VC
Kirby Puckett 16.2 80s 5.9 11.4 80% -102 *
Earle Combs 14.8 20s 6.7 9.4 80% -14 * VC
Richie Ashburn 14.6 50s 4.9 14.2 91% 227 * VC
Max Carey 13.8 20s 4.9 16.3 66% 197 * VC 26% lf
Jim O'Rourke 11.9 1880s 15.1 20.5 23% -88 * OT 39% lf
Hugh Duffy 10.7 1890s 2.9 12.6 39% -9 * OT 33% lf, 25% rf
Lloyd Waner 4.6 20s -6.3 12.9 83% 76 * VC
Key to stats:
Peaks for Prominent Rightfielders
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Babe Ruth 50.4 20s 78.9 16.5 45% 5 * 42% lf
Stan Musial 36.3 40s 57.9 19.6 25% -39 * 34% 1b, 31% lf
Hank Aaron 35.7 60s 68.9 20.7 66% 101 *
Frank Robinson 33.1 60s 52.2 17.6 46% 52 * 29% lf
Mel Ott 30.3 30s 48.1 17.7 79% -10 *
Reggie Jackson 28.4 70s 26.2 17.7 69% 8 * 22% dh
Harry Heilmann 27.2 20s 22.3 14.1 71% -48 * 21% 1b
Roberto Clemente 24.3 60s 17.9 15.3 95% 175 *
Elmer Flick 24.0 1900s 14.3 9.9 89% 23 * VC
Chuck Klein 23.7 30s 5.4 11.4 74% 16 * VC
Al Kaline 23.2 60s 30.5 16.3 72% 103 *
Dave Winfield 22.8 80s 25.7 18.9 63% 2 *
Sam Crawford 22.7 1900s 31.6 16.6 67% -48 * VC
Paul Waner 22.5 30s 23.5 16.6 89% 40 *
Ross Youngs 18.0 20s 4.2 8.1 98% -4 * VC
Sam Thompson 17.0 1890s 9.9 10.7 100% 52 * VC
Kiki Cuyler 16.5 20s 8.5 12.2 42% 12 * VC 37% cf
Enos Slaughter 16.2 40s 11.1 15.5 65% 0 * VC 22% lf
King Kelly 15.6 1880s 5.7 13.5 51% 0 * OT 40% c
Willie Keeler 15.3 1890s 15.3 14.7 89% -29 *
Harry Hooper 12.0 20s 7.8 15.2 95% 91 * VC
Sam Rice 9.4 20s 8.2 15.7 69% 75 * VC 25% cf
Joe Carter 8.8 90s -4.2 13.9 29% -66 '04 35% lf
Tommy McCarthy 4.2 1890s -6.3 9.6 51% 49 * OT 40% lf
Murph was higher on the defensive spectrum and much more valuable on
offense, but because they both were mostly outfielders, had careers of
nearly the exact same length, and match up well on statistics like BA
and RBI, they are each other's most similar batter. It helps that there
aren't a lot of outfielders like Murphy -- reasonably long career, HOF-level
peak in centerfield, basically league average outside it. OK, that doesn't
really describe anybody but Murphy.
> Ron Santo is 4th. Do these similarity scores take into account park
> and era differences?
>
No.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
daleste...@mac.com
JPM III
> > > MVP awards not good enough for Cooperstown?
> >
> > One HOF-er in his top ten similar batters, Duke Snider, and it took
> > him awhile to get there. Ellis Burks is 10th, and J** C***** is 1st.
> > Remembering their roles in Nolan Ryan's 7th no-hitter (Carter with
> > the only 2 walks, and Burks being absolutely destroyed by repeated
> > up-and-in fastballs), I am really starting to wonder about these
> > similarity scores. :-)
> >
> Joe Carter being #1 in Dale Murphy's similarity scores (and vice
> versa) is an excellent illustration of the limitations of similarity
> scores.
>
> offense, but because they both were mostly outfielders, had careers of
> nearly the exact same length, and match up well on statistics like BA
> and RBI, they are each other's most similar batter. It helps that
> there aren't a lot of outfielders like Murphy -- reasonably long
> career, HOF-level peak in centerfield, basically league average
> outside it. OK, that doesn't really describe anybody but Murphy.
Well, how many other centerfielders started their careers as a catcher? (And
is Biggio a HOF contender?)
Cameron Laird
JPM III <jpmc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>Well, how many other centerfielders started their careers as a catcher? (And
>is Biggio a HOF contender?)
>
>
The glib answer is that Mr. Biggio is a HoF *lock*.
His career OPS+ is higher than Ryne Sandberg's. If
your HoF includes anybody below Charlie Gehringer,
it should include Craig Biggio.
'Course, Bobby Grich raises questions at that point
that are a bit sticky ...
--
Cameron Laird <cla...@phaseit.net>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Ben
>
> The glib answer is that Mr. Biggio is a HoF *lock*.
just ask bill james <ducking>
--
Ben B
JPM III
Hrbek: www.baseball-reference.com/h/hrbekke01.shtml
Yr G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K
Boyer: 15 2034 7455 1104 2143 318 68 282 1141 713 1017
Hrbek: 14 1747 6192 903 1749 312 18 293 1086 838 798
AVG OBP SLG OPS
Boyer: .287 .349 .462 .811
Hrbek: .282 .367 .481 .848
In 287 fewer games, Hrbek came to the plate 1131 fewer times than did Boyer,
so Hrbek really only played about 11-12 years worth. Yet Hrbek made contact
and reached base more often, and he hit for better power. Boyer was a bit
speedier in his youth, but that doesn't add up in the long run.
By my estimation, neither of these players is HOF worthy. However, if their
careers were missing 4-5 seasons because they had served in the military
during a war, things would be different, because they'd arguably be missing
years of their prime. (Was Boyer serving in Vietnam at age 19-23 in 1950-53
by any chance? If so, maybe reconsider...)
Dvd Avins
> Boyer: www.baseball-reference.com/b/boyerke01.shtml
> Hrbek: www.baseball-reference.com/h/hrbekke01.shtml
>
> Yr G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K
> Boyer: 15 2034 7455 1104 2143 318 68 282 1141 713 1017
> Hrbek: 14 1747 6192 903 1749 312 18 293 1086 838 798
>
> AVG OBP SLG OPS
> Boyer: .287 .349 .462 .811
> Hrbek: .282 .367 .481 .848
>
> In 287 fewer games, Hrbek came to the plate 1131 fewer times than did
Boyer,
> so Hrbek really only played about 11-12 years worth. Yet Hrbek made
contact
> and reached base more often, and he hit for better power. Boyer was a bit
> speedier in his youth, but that doesn't add up in the long run.
Boyer was a third baseman, hitting in a more pitching-oriented era.
> By my estimation, neither of these players is HOF worthy. However, if
their
> careers were missing 4-5 seasons because they had served in the military
> during a war, things would be different, because they'd arguably be
missing
> years of their prime. (Was Boyer serving in Vietnam at age 19-23 in
1950-53
> by any chance? If so, maybe reconsider...)
If you mean Korea, I don't know. It's safe to assume he wasn't in Vietnam.
--
Rather than working hard to create a Constitution for Iraq, why don't we
just give them ours? We're not using it.
Gerry Myerson
"JPM III" <jpmc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (Was Boyer serving in Vietnam at age 19-23 in 1950-53
> by any chance?
Only if he was French.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
David Foss
> "JPM III" <jpmc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ikmt6F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Boyer: www.baseball-reference.com/b/boyerke01.shtml
> > Hrbek: www.baseball-reference.com/h/hrbekke01.shtml
> >
> > Yr G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K
> > Boyer: 15 2034 7455 1104 2143 318 68 282 1141 713 1017
> > Hrbek: 14 1747 6192 903 1749 312 18 293 1086 838 798
> >
> > AVG OBP SLG OPS
> > Boyer: .287 .349 .462 .811
> > Hrbek: .282 .367 .481 .848
> >
> > In 287 fewer games, Hrbek came to the plate 1131 fewer times than did
> Boyer,
> > so Hrbek really only played about 11-12 years worth. Yet Hrbek made
> contact
> > and reached base more often, and he hit for better power. Boyer was a bit
> > speedier in his youth, but that doesn't add up in the long run.
>
> Boyer was a third baseman, hitting in a more pitching-oriented era.
Boyer's leagues : .269/.335/.412
Hrbek's leagues : .267/.335/.408
Sportsman's was a stronger hitter's park than even the Metrodome and
the pitching era didn't really start until Boyer was over 30. Also
offense levels were quite low from 88-92.
I don't really know how this crazy comparison got started. Positional
adjustment is important. FWIW, I think Boyer's a better apple than
Hrbek is an orange.
Ben
> > by any chance?
>
> Only if he was French.
la legion etrangere.
--
Ben B
Bill G
> Hrbek: www.baseball-reference.com/h/hrbekke01.shtml
>
> Yr G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K
> Boyer: 15 2034 7455 1104 2143 318 68 282 1141 713 1017
> Hrbek: 14 1747 6192 903 1749 312 18 293 1086 838 798
>
> AVG OBP SLG OPS
> Boyer: .287 .349 .462 .811
> Hrbek: .282 .367 .481 .848
HOF HOF
Gray Ink Standards Monitor Other
Hrbek 40 25.9 18.5 1 ASG
Boyer 138 35.7 74.5 7 ASG / 5 GG / 1 MVP
Why are we comparing these 2 players?
Bill G
Clifford Blau
<ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>In article <2ikmt6F...@uni-berlin.de>,
> "JPM III" <jpmc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (Was Boyer serving in Vietnam at age 19-23 in 1950-53
>> by any chance?
>
>Only if he was French.
You're thinking of Charles Boyer.
------------
Clifford Blau
http://mysite.verizon.net/brak2.0
JPM III
> > by any chance? If so, maybe reconsider...)
>
> If you mean Korea, I don't know. It's safe to assume he wasn't in
> Vietnam.
At least I got the years right. Hmm.
JPM III
Because Hrbek doesn't belong in the hall, and he has better numbers.
Bill G
> > >
> > > Yr G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K
> > > Boyer: 15 2034 7455 1104 2143 318 68 282 1141 713 1017
> > > Hrbek: 14 1747 6192 903 1749 312 18 293 1086 838 798
> > >
> > > AVG OBP SLG OPS
> > > Boyer: .287 .349 .462 .811
> > > Hrbek: .282 .367 .481 .848
> >
> > HOF HOF
> > Gray Ink Standards Monitor Other
> > Hrbek 40 25.9 18.5 1 ASG
> > Boyer 138 35.7 74.5 7 ASG / 5 GG
> > / 1 MVP
> >
> >
> > Why are we comparing these 2 players?
> >
> > Bill G
>
> Because Hrbek doesn't belong in the hall, and he has better numbers.
Better offensive/peak numbers, but not better career numbers. But if Hrbek
had not stopped at 34, his rate stats would have fallen more in line with
Boyer's, and he loses the only edge he's got. Hrbek also played the easiest
position on the diamond while Boyer played one of the most difficult, and
played it extremely well.
At least we agree that neither belongs in the Hall.
Bill G
JPM III
> > > >
> Yr G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K
> Boyer: 15 2034 7455 1104 2143 318 68 282 1141 713 1017
> Hrbek: 14 1747 6192 903 1749 312 18 293 1086 838 798
>
> AVG OBP SLG OPS
> Boyer: .287 .349 .462 .811
> Hrbek: .282 .367 .481 .848
> > > Why are we comparing these 2 players?
> >
> > Because Hrbek doesn't belong in the hall, and he has better numbers.
>
> Better offensive/peak numbers, but not better career numbers.
Uhh, which numbers are you looking at? From what I see above, Hrbek walked
more and hit for better power and created almost as many runs, despite
playing in almost 300 fewer games.
> But if
> Hrbek had not stopped at 34, his rate stats would have fallen more in
> line with Boyer's, and he loses the only edge he's got. Hrbek also
> played the easiest position on the diamond while Boyer played one of
> the most difficult, and played it extremely well.
And Hrbek threw Ron Gant off 1B in the 1991 World Series, possibly costing
the Atlanta Braves a Yankees-like run on championships... :-P
> At least we agree that neither belongs in the Hall.
Good enough. :-P