Is the HOF over crowded with unworthy members?
Desponded1
Do you think the Hall of Fame contains some memebers that aren't worthy? I
think and it is simple to see who isn't worthy of being there. I think when
they started the Hall of Fame it had orignal greats of the game being placed
into it such as Ruth and Cy Young. I think membership now into the HOF isn't
what people who started it was suppose to be. I see some members getting into
the HOF who never lead their league in any major statistical category. I think
only those who dominate and is among the league leaders in stats through out
most of there career should be in.
For example,I think of today players one most obvious Hall of Famer is Tony
Gywnn.I think he has lead his league many times and is difinitelty without a
doubt a Hall of Famer.
But I think people who are popular with the fans and media shouldn't get in
just based on their popularity. I know people out there will hate hearing this
but one such player in baseball today is Cal Ripken. I think he is a very good
player but a Hall of Famer he isn't. Looking at his stats he had a few great
years statisically but dominate like such greats like Nolan Ryan,Tony Gywnn,Ted
Williams,Stan Musial,Steve Carlton,Rod Carew,Rogers Hornsby,Tom Seaver and
other greats like these.
What do you think? Are some players not worthy in the HOF? If so who do you
think is in the HOF and shouldn't be there?
Not a Pretty Girl
As I lay dying, Desponded1 (despo...@aol.com) whispered:
: Do you think the Hall of Fame contains some memebers that aren't worthy? I
: think and it is simple to see who isn't worthy of being there. I think when
: they started the Hall of Fame it had orignal greats of the game being placed
: into it such as Ruth and Cy Young. I think membership now into the HOF isn't
: what people who started it was suppose to be. I see some members getting into
: the HOF who never lead their league in any major statistical
: category. I think only those who dominate and is among the league
: leaders in stats through out most of there career should be in.
I think that only the best players should get in. It's
possible to be an excellent player without being a
dominating league leader if you do everything well. Look at
Eddie Murray or Dave Winfield. I'd rather have them in the
Hall of Fame over many batting average champs like Rose or
Tony Gwynn.
: For example,I think of today players one most obvious Hall of Famer is Tony
: Gywnn.I think he has lead his league many times and is difinitelty without a
: doubt a Hall of Famer.
I'd much rather enshrine Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, Wade
Boggs, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Cal Ripken, who
dominated at their positions for a much longer time.
Despite Gwynn's batting titles, he hasn't had much power and
doesn't get on base as well as Henderson or Boggs. Thus, he
hasn't been a dominating player.
: But I think people who are popular with the fans and media shouldn't get in
: just based on their popularity. I know people out there will hate
: hearing this but one such player in baseball today is Cal Ripken. I
: think he is a very good player but a Hall of Famer he isn't.
He was an excellent defensive SS who has 370 career HR.
Besides Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan, has there been a
better SS in baseball history, considering both peak and
career value?
: Looking at his stats he had a few great years statisically but dominate like
: such greats like Nolan Ryan,Tony Gywnn
Ryan and Gwynn both led the league in superficially
impressive categories that didn't mean all that much.
Ryan's strikeouts hid the fact that he didn't have an
especially low ERA and gave up lots of baserunners. To me,
Ryan barely gets in only because of his very long career,
which gives him lots of value. I don't think he'd deserve
to be in the Hall of Fame if he had a normal 15 year
career. And I've already covered my opinion of Gwynn.
: Ted Williams,Stan Musial,Steve Carlton,Rod Carew,Rogers Hornsby,Tom
: Seaver and other greats like these.
This is kind of an odd mix. You have 2 of the 3 best LF's
of all time (Bonds is #2 or #3, depending on how you measure
these things), the best 2B of all time, and two very good
pitchers with peaks below Maddux and Clemens. And then Rod
Carew, who was a very good player, but closer to Dick Allen
than to Lou Gehrig.
: What do you think? Are some players not worthy in the HOF? If so who do you
: think is in the HOF and shouldn't be there?
Well, there's currently an Internet Hall of Fame going on.
If you look through Deja News or search through the
newsgroup, you can get an idea of what the consensus here
seems to be. But here's the simple answer: Babe Ruth
belongs and Rabbit Marranville doesn't. The in-betweens are
what's so hard.
Flippantly,
Hyoun
--
\_____________ "...if you allow yourself to feel \_a___________
\_____________ the way you really feel, maybe you \___m___s_____
\_____________ won't be afraid of that feeling \_____a___a___
\_____________ anymore." \_______t___i_
\_____________ tori amos \_________e___
\_____________ \_____________
hyoun park '99E hjp...@amherst.edu http://www.amherst.edu/~hjpark
Jstu9
>Do you think the Hall of Fame contains some memebers that aren't worthy?
Certainly.
> I think and it is simple to see who isn't worthy of being there. I think when
>they started the Hall of Fame it had orignal greats of the game being placed
>into it such as Ruth and Cy Young.
Originally, they really didn't know *who* to put in. Who was great? So, some
players got in who weren't great.
> I think membership now into the HOF isn't
>what people who started it was suppose to be.
So, what did they think it was going to be?
> I see some members getting into the HOF who never lead their league in any
>major statistical category.
Obviously, the "Black Ink" sign of a player is an indication of a great player,
but you can be great without leading in a category.
>I think only those who dominate and is among the league leaders in stats
> through out most of there career should be in.
Sounds like you have a very exclusive Hall.
>For example,I think of today players one most obvious Hall of Famer is Tony
>Gywnn.I think he has lead his league many times and is difinitelty without a
>doubt a Hall of Famer.
True, he's a Hall of Famer.
>But I think people who are popular with the fans and media shouldn't get in
>just based on their popularity. I know people out there will hate hearing
>this but one such player in baseball today is Cal Ripken. I think he is a very
>good player but a Hall of Famer he isn't.
You would be kicking out 75% of the SS in the Hall if you don't induct Ripken,
since he is among the top few SS's of all-time.
>What do you think? Are some players not worthy in the HOF?
Yes.
> If so who do you think is in the HOF and shouldn't be there?
I'd have to go through the list, but I'd guess I'd kick out about 20-25 players
or something like that. Just look at the Internet Hall of Fame balloting being
conducted by moi and another. Some HOFers are just getting by 10-15% of the
vote.
jls
9 in 99
Ron Johnson
In article <19980310183...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Jstu9 <js...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Do you think the Hall of Fame contains some memebers that aren't worthy?
>
>Certainly.
>
>> I think and it is simple to see who isn't worthy of being there.
>>I think when they started the Hall of Fame it had orignal greats of
>>the game being placed into it such as Ruth and Cy Young.
>Originally, they really didn't know *who* to put in.
And then Frankie Frisch solved the problem. He may not have known
who was great, but he knew who his friends were.
--
RNJ
Desponded1
>He was an excellent defensive SS who has 370 career HR.
> Besides Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan, has there been a
> better SS in baseball history, considering both peak and
> career value?
>
>
I am not out to knock Ripken but just because he played shortstop and hit alot
of homerun in a time its seem homeruns are going out of parks like crazy
doesn't mean he is a hall of famer. Regardless where a person plays in the
field he still needs to dominate something Ripken hasn't done in his career. he
is a .275 hitter with some power and that is all he is. Don't get me wrong he
is very good but to put in the same class as Maddux and Clemens he isn't.
As far as Ryan just look up what kind of batting average against him batters
had they didn't hit very well at all. I know he walked alot of batters but I
think he has one of the lowest batting average against him in history. Yes, his
ERA isn't great but how many people even come close to pitching as many inning
as he did. He had 7 no-hitters and a dozen one-hitters and how many shut-outs ?
There is no doubt he dominate the league and is not just a barely worthy Hall
of Famer.
> This is kind of an odd mix. You have 2 of the 3 best LF's
> of all time (Bonds is #2 or #3, depending on how you measure
> these things), the best 2B of all time, and two very good
> pitchers with peaks below Maddux and Clemens.
As far as putting the right mix of worthy pick I didn't have any reason I just
named a few off hand that is all. Carlton and Seaver are not just two very
good pitchers with peaks below Clemens. I think they have numbers equal or
better to him. Maddux on the other hand is a pitcher with better numbers and
I agree on that.
DougP001
In article <19980310204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, despo...@aol.com
(Desponded1) writes:
>I am not out to knock Ripken but just because he played shortstop and hit
>alotof homerun in a time its seem homeruns are going out of parks like crazy
>doesn't mean he is a hall of famer. Regardless where a person plays in the
>field he still needs to dominate something Ripken hasn't done in his career.
>he is a .275 hitter with some power and that is all he is.
Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
qualify him for the HOF?
How many shortstops can be described as ".275 hitters with power"?
How many shortstops have hit over 300 HR in their career, or won two
MVPs? Not to mention Ripken's defense, which was the best in the league
for a decade.
>As far as Ryan just look up what kind of batting average against him batters
>had they didn't hit very well at all. I know he walked alot of batters but
I
>think he has one of the lowest batting average against him in history. Yes,
his
>ERA isn't great but how many people even come close to pitching as many inning
>as he did.
As you say, Ryan's ERA isn't great. ERA is the single best measure
of a pitcher's quality, and Ryan pitched almost his entire career in pitchers'
parks which made his ERA look better than it was. Ryan's won-lost record
isn't great, either. Ryan's career looks an awful lot like Don Sutton with
more strikeouts, and nobody's calling Sutton one of the 10 best pitchers of
all time.
Doug Pappas
Desponded1
>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
>the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
>qualify him for the HOF?
I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers. Yes , he played
Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
legends? Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
the elite and not very good players.
As for Ryan , I said before batters rarely got a hit off him .How many
no-hitters and how many one-hitters and how many shutouts and complete games?If
you don't believe batters had a hard time hitting Ryan just look and see what
batters batting average against him was for Ryan's career, he was one of the
hardest if not the hardest to get a hit off of(That sounds like Hall of Famer
stuff to me). You don't think he dominated the league during his career? I bet
batters that faced him would say he did.
Not a Pretty Girl
: > Besides Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan, has there been a
: > better SS in baseball history, considering both peak and
: > career value?
: I am not out to knock Ripken but just because he played shortstop
: and hit alot of homerun in a time its seem homeruns are going out of
: parks like crazy doesn't mean he is a hall of famer.
Well, he also won 2 MVP's, is a perennial All-Star, and was a
very good defensive SS. He's not just a misplaced slugger
placed at SS, as you seem to suggest. And you still didn't
say who was better. Would you really just take one or two SS?
: Regardless where a person plays in the
: field he still needs to dominate something Ripken hasn't done in his
: career.
1983-1988 and 1991 were very good seasons for Ripken. If
you're only going to let in the best offensive bats in
history, your Hall of Fame will have almost no C, 2B, SS, 3B,
or CF. How is being the best SS year after year not a
dominant performance?
: As far as Ryan just look up what kind of batting average against him batters
: had they didn't hit very well at all. I know he walked alot of
: batters but I think he has one of the lowest batting average against
: him in history. Yes, his ERA isn't great but how many people even come
: close to pitching as many inning as he did.
Again, he did well in stuff like strikeouts and opposing
batting average, but he gave up lots of runs. He gets my HoF
vote because he was above-average for a very long time, but he was
never a dominant pitcher for an extended period like Koufax,
Clemens, Maddux, Seaver, or Carlton. If you're serious about
only letting the most dominant players in, I don't see how you
can let Ryan in. After all, he wasn't that great at the one
thing that pitchers are supposed to do: keep batters from
scoring. If you give up 4 runs a game while striking out 12
guys, walking 6 guys, and only giving up 5 hits, you're not a
star pitcher; you're an average pitcher with a gimmick. Ryan
had a lot of starts like that which kept him from being as
dominant as a Carlton or a Bob Gibson. Ryan's much more like
Phil Niekro as far as that goes, except that Ryan had more
strikeouts.
: He had 7 no-hitters and a
: dozen one-hitters and how many shut-outs ? There is no doubt he
: dominate the league and is not just a barely worthy Hall of Famer.
And what about his huge wild pitch and walks totals? And the
other 700+ games that he pitched? Ryan, at his best, was
unhittable. Ryan at his worst was a wild flameballer. It's
dishonest to conviniently forget about all of the many
non-dominant performances that Ryan had and concentrate on the
few games where he was very good. His HoF vote is based on
longevity, not on dominance like Koufax was and Maddux will be.
: As far as putting the right mix of worthy pick I didn't have any
: reason I just named a few off hand that is all. Carlton and Seaver
: are not just two very good pitchers with peaks below Clemens. I think
: they have numbers equal or better to him. Maddux on the other hand
: is a pitcher with better numbers and I agree on that.
Part of the problem of pitching in a hitter's park like Fenway
is that nobody's willing to admit that you pitch well.
Clemens' peak, adjusted for era and ballpark, beats Carlton,
Seaver, and Maddux. Look at Clemens fom 1986 to 1992,
consider how much of a hitter's park Fenway was, then find me
a similar 7 season stretch in any of these pitchers' stats.
Unfortunately, the 1994 and 1995 shortened seasons hurt Maddux
in this regard, but nonetheless, Clemens comes out ahead. And
you might appreciate that Clemens has a lower career
Opponent's batting average and more strikeouts than Maddux,
though it doesn't really matter to me.
Respectfully,
James Weisberg
In article <19980310211...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
DougP001 <doug...@aol.com> wrote:
>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
>the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
>qualify him for the HOF?
Can I play Lajoie at 2nd and Collins at SS?
--
World's Greatest Living Poster
James Weisberg
In article <19980310220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
>>the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
>>qualify him for the HOF?
>
>Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
>legends? Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
>you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
>the elite and not very good players.
Oh this is one of the dumbest things I've heard recently!
So you don't think .275 is worthy of the HOF huh? Well, golly
gee, aside from measuring the total contribution of a player
by one stat, do you realize some of the people who you are
keeping OUT of the HOF with this?
Ernie Banks .274
Phil Rizzuto .273
Eddie Matthews .271
Willie McCovey .270
Pee Wee Reese .269
Brooks Robinson .267
Mike Schmidt .267
Johnny Bench .267
Bobby Wallace .266
Reggie Jackson .262
Harmon Killbrew .256
Should I go on? When you're one of the top 5 SSs *EVER*,
you deserve to go into the HOF. Not to mention, if there is
anyone with peripherals as HOF credentials, Ripken is the
man, ...er, make that Iron Man.
Jstu9
>I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers. Yes , he played
>Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
>legends?
Yes.
> Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
>you think of Hall of Fame members?
Now, the Hall of Fame are only players that are close to Ruth and Williams? Ok,
you'll have a HOF with about 10 players.
But other than that, Ripken is a Hall of Famer and his numbers compare very
well to other SS that are in the Hall of Fame.
> I think the Hall of Fame should only hold the elite and not very good
players.
Ripken was/is a great player.
jls
Fore Steven James
On 11 Mar 1998, Desponded1 wrote:
[snip]
>
> You say Ryan is only in becasue his longevity but that is my point! He
> dominated for a long time isn't that the whole point?
No. The point is that he DIDN'T "dominate"; was there ever a season in
which he was the best pitcher in the league, much less baseball? Or even
close? He was very good for a long time, but in most seasons he allowed a
ton of baserunners. (Granted that batters hit for a low average against
him, but what was the opponents' OBP? I'll bet the BA/OBP split looks
like a Warren Newson or Mickey Tettleton season.)
He dominated that long
> that makes him that much worthy of the Hall of Fame?
That he pitched very well for that long makes him worthy. The man was a
glorious freak of nature. If he'd had a career of about 14-15 years, it's
unlikely that we'd be having this conversation. His peak was just not
that great.
If Ryan had not played all
> those years and stop when he was at his peak his ERA would have been much
> better and because he played those extra years his ERA was affected some.
Um, no. Ryan's claim to the HOF is that he was still an effective pitcher
well into his 40s (not "dominant," but "very good"). What's amazing about
his career is that he was putting together seasons in his 40s that were as
good (except for some injuries) as his best seasons in his 20s. He really
didn't tail off gradually and painfully, a la Carlton/Palmer/Morris. His
only really crappy season was the very last one (in which he pitched in
only 13 games).
Ryan
> wasn't a gimmick. The man pitched 27 years and over 5300 inning with an ERA
> around 3.2 runs a game. You say he had some non-dominant perforances. Well,
> name me any pitcher who didn't ? All I was saying is he pitched alot of games
> where he held batters to just a few hits .
And he gave up more than a few walks in many as well. Walks are not good.
I bet you can't name another pitcher
> who accomplished that feat . I agree maybe one can look at all his walks and
> all his wild pitches but I think his other accomplishments out number those
> thing very easily.
They do. Ryan does belong in the Hall of Fame, IMO.
I don't think Ryan was just a pitcher who pitch some very
> low hit games. Ryan pitch well in alot of games and he wouldn't have been
> around as long as he did if he had not. Bottom line, Ryan obviously dominated
> if he didn't he wouldn't have lasted 27 years. As far as his wins and lost
> record goes, that is something a pitcher can't control. That is all what your
> team gives you and the pitcher has no control over it. His record shows that he
> didn't pitch on some very good teams if he did I'm sure he could have came
> close to winning 400 games in his career.
>
> I agree on Ripken as being a very good choice as a shortstop. He is an very
> good player and plays hard every day. He is a role model and what I wish alot
> of other whinning players in baseball would be like. However, he lacks in
> statistics.His average is too low and his homeruns number is great for a
> shortstop but position where a player plays means little when one talks about
> all time greats.
Excuse me, but you're way nuts on this. Context means darned near
everything. Ripken is one of the four or five greatest shortstops ever
(with absolutely no contribution from that stupid, increasingly pointless
streak that Cal has *got* to be having serious second thoughts about ever
having embarked upon at this point). Who are you comparing Ripken to?
Ruth? Cobb? Walter Johnson? Apple, meet orange. Cal probably couldn't
have struck out 3500 batters, and I'll bet Walter couldn't have hit those
dingers and Babe wouldn't have showed Ripken's range at short. (I'll
leave Cobb out of this, for obvious reasons.) See how pointless that is?
Ripken's peers are other shortstops, and Ripken does just fine in that
company.
I have to say statistically if I did look at postions and who
> had the best stats at them. I would have to say Ripken obviously is one of the
> best at that position but still falls short of Hall of Fame by my standards. If
> you think the Hall of Fame is based on ranking people by postion then I see
> your reasoning on Ripken. I just see the Hall of Fame for players who are the
> best, not best at their postion.
What's your rationale for drawing that distinction? You have the oddest
HOF criteria I've yet encountered.
Steve Fore
Dan Szymborski
In article <19980310220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 says...
> >Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
> >the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
> >qualify him for the HOF?
>
> Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
> you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
> the elite and not very good players.
So then, there is no shortstop in American League history
worthy of being in the Hall of Fame?
--
Dan Szymborski-Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
"...in the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk
all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what
that means. Talent makes winnners, not intangibles.
Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win -- if they're
nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little
talent finish fourth, and nice guys with no talent finish
last."
---Sandy Koufax
John Krempasky
Desponded1 wrote in message
<19980311023...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
>I agree on Ripken as being a very good choice as a shortstop. He is an very
>good player and plays hard every day. He is a role model and what I wish
alot
>of other whinning players in baseball would be like. However, he lacks in
>statistics.
His average is too low and his homeruns number is great for a
>shortstop but position where a player plays means little when one talks
about
>all time greats
What a remarkably stupid statement.
So again, you're saying that basically, almost catchers, second basemen, or
shortstops should be in the Hall of Fame, that it should be populated by
pretty much nothing but Outfielders and First Basemen?
>I just see the Hall of Fame for players who are the
>best, not best at their postion.
You have no idea of how baseball teams win games, do you?
Michael David Jones
despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
>>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
>>the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
>>qualify him for the HOF?
>I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers. Yes , he played
>Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
>legends? Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
>you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
>the elite and not very good players.
OK, so if you don't take Ripken, what shortstops *do* you take?
>As for Ryan , I said before batters rarely got a hit off him .How many
>no-hitters and how many one-hitters and how many shutouts and complete games?If
>you don't believe batters had a hard time hitting Ryan just look and see what
>batters batting average against him was for Ryan's career, he was one of the
>hardest if not the hardest to get a hit off of(That sounds like Hall of Famer
>stuff to me). You don't think he dominated the league during his career? I bet
>batters that faced him would say he did.
The point of pitching isn't "not giving up hits", though, it's "not
allowing the other team to score". Ryan didn't give up that many hits,
but he walked enough people that the hits he did give up were
relatively more damaging.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Love will get you through times of no sex much better than sex will
get you through times of no love.
Dale J. Stephenson
In article <19980310220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) wrote:
> >Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
> >the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
> >qualify him for the HOF?
>
> I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers.
You believe Nolan Ryan is a HOFer, and he didn't hit anywhere *near* this
well. Ripken doesn't have HOF offensive credentials (not just batting
average, which is close to useless by itself) at first base or corner
outfield -- but he didn't play first, he played shortstop. He's a lock.
Yes , he played
> Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
> legends? Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
> you think of Hall of Fame members?
When I think of HOF shortstops, Ripken's name comes up long before Ruth or
Williams. If you think a player needs to be as good as Ted Williams to be
in the HOF, you're advocating a two person Hall.
> I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
> the elite and not very good players.
>
I think people who don't think Ripken has had an elite career aren't the
people I want deciding who goes in the HOF and who stays.
> As for Ryan , I said before batters rarely got a hit off him .How many
> no-hitters and how many one-hitters and how many shutouts and complete
games?If
> you don't believe batters had a hard time hitting Ryan just look and see what
> batters batting average against him was for Ryan's career, he was one of the
> hardest if not the hardest to get a hit off of(That sounds like Hall
of Famer
> stuff to me). You don't think he dominated the league during his career? I bet
> batters that faced him would say he did.
If you won games by getting the most hits, Ryan would have a good claim for
the best ever. Unfortunately, Ryan walked a lot of people and pitched
much worse from the stretch. Lots of no-hitters, but his value for any given
season was *not* especially impressive. On peak value, he's not in the top
50.
That said, he pitched above average ball for a long, long, long time, and
that has *enormous* value for a starting pitcher. He's one of the most
valuable pitchers of all time, and very deserving of a HOF berth. He's just
not as "great", IMO, as less flashy but more dominating pitchers like
Lefty Grove or Roger Clemens or Greg Maddux.
--
Dale J. Stephenson * dst...@sirius.com * past his prime
"I know nothing, Colonel Turner, nothing."
-- Sgt. Schuerholz
James Tuttle
> Desponded1 wrote:
> >
> >I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers.
> >the elite and not very good players.
> So you don't think .275 is worthy of the HOF huh? Well, golly
> gee, do you realize some of the people who you are
> keeping OUT of the HOF with this?
>
> Ernie Banks .274
> Phil Rizzuto .273
> Eddie Matthews .271
> Willie McCovey .270
> Pee Wee Reese .269
> Brooks Robinson .267
> Mike Schmidt .267
> Johnny Bench .267
> Bobby Wallace .266
> Reggie Jackson .262
> Harmon Killbrew .256
Yes, it appears that Desponded1 believes that these are neither "the
elite" nor the "not very good players." So Desponded1 believes they
don't belong.
James Tuttle
Doug Pappas writes:
> (Desponded1) writes:
> >Doug Pappas writes:
> >>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting
> >>SS on the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think
> >>that should qualify him for the HOF?
> >
> >I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers.
>
> Then you should open your eyes, stop fixating on BA as the principal
> measure of a player's ability, and focus on the sentence I wrote. Are
> you arguing that *no* AL shortstop belongs in the Hall of Fame?
> Because there sure as hell aren't any more qualified than Ripken.
>
> >Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and Ted Williams when
> >you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should
> >only hold the elite and not very good players.
>
> Ripken *is* the elite among AL shortstops, and the second or third
> best shortstop in major league history. If Ripken's not qualified,
> then neither are Stan Musial or Mickey Mantle.
It all comes down to numbers. If you ranked all the good retired
players from #1 down to #1000, where do you draw the line? If Ripken is
the second or third best SS in ML history, what's his overall number?
Is he in the top 10? Probably not. Is he in the top 50? I don't
know. Does he rank ahead of Musial and Mantle? Pappas evidently says
yes; I'm not so sure.
Now, if Desponded wants just the elite, maybe he wants to cut the list
off at 25. Is Ripken in the top 25? Maybe not, and furthermore, maybe
the only SS in the top 25 is Wagner. Maybe the top 25 is dominated by
outfielders, first basemen, and pitchers.
James Tuttle
John Krempasky:
> So again, you're saying that basically, almost catchers, second
> basemen, or shortstops should be in the Hall of Fame, that it should
> be populated by pretty much nothing but Outfielders and First Basemen?
Desponded1:
> >I just see the Hall of Fame for players who are the
> >best, not best at their position.
I think Desponded wants to limit the Hall to the very best players --
the ones he calls the "elite."
The Hall could be limited that way. There could be one player elected
for every U.S. president since 1876. What would that give us? 20 or 25
members of the Hall? And we could elect one more as soon as Clinton's
gone. And another 4 or 8 years after that.
Or how about one HOFer for every Nobel Prize in physics?
If you did something like that, you'd certainly have the elite, and you
probably wouldn't have that shortstop/third baseman from Baltimore.
Desponded's point of view is defensible. Anybody who argues with him is
just saying that we want more people in hte Hall. Ultimately, that's
the question. Should there be 20? 40? 80? 160? 320? 640? 1280?
2560? 5120?
Or should everybody who's five years retired from baseball get in?
Those are the real questions.
Desponded1
> As far as Ryan just look up what kind of batting average against him batters
>: had they didn't hit very well at all. I know he walked alot of
>: batters but I think he has one of the lowest batting average against
>: him in history. Yes, his ERA isn't great but how many people even come
>: close to pitching as many inning as he did.
>
> Again, he did well in stuff like strikeouts and opposing
> batting average, but he gave up lots of runs. He gets my HoF
> vote because he was above-average for a very long time, but he was
> never a dominant pitcher for an extended period like Koufax,
> Clemens, Maddux, Seaver, or Carlton. If you're serious about
> only letting the most dominant players in, I don't see how you
> can let Ryan in. After all, he wasn't that great at the one
> thing that pitchers are supposed to do: keep batters from
> scoring. If you give up 4 runs a game while striking out 12
> guys, walking 6 guys, and only giving up 5 hits, you're not a
> star pitcher; you're an average pitcher with a gimmick. Ryan
> had a lot of starts like that which kept him from being as
> dominant as a Carlton or a Bob Gibson. Ryan's much more like
> Phil Niekro as far as that goes, except that Ryan had more
> strikeouts.
>
>
You say Ryan is only in becasue his longevity but that is my point! He
dominated for a long time isn't that the whole point? He dominated that long
that makes him that much worthy of the Hall of Fame? If Ryan had not played all
those years and stop when he was at his peak his ERA would have been much
better and because he played those extra years his ERA was affected some. Ryan
wasn't a gimmick. The man pitched 27 years and over 5300 inning with an ERA
around 3.2 runs a game. You say he had some non-dominant perforances. Well,
name me any pitcher who didn't ? All I was saying is he pitched alot of games
where he held batters to just a few hits . I bet you can't name another pitcher
who accomplished that feat . I agree maybe one can look at all his walks and
all his wild pitches but I think his other accomplishments out number those
thing very easily. I don't think Ryan was just a pitcher who pitch some very
low hit games. Ryan pitch well in alot of games and he wouldn't have been
around as long as he did if he had not. Bottom line, Ryan obviously dominated
if he didn't he wouldn't have lasted 27 years. As far as his wins and lost
record goes, that is something a pitcher can't control. That is all what your
team gives you and the pitcher has no control over it. His record shows that he
didn't pitch on some very good teams if he did I'm sure he could have came
close to winning 400 games in his career.
I agree on Ripken as being a very good choice as a shortstop. He is an very
good player and plays hard every day. He is a role model and what I wish alot
of other whinning players in baseball would be like. However, he lacks in
statistics.His average is too low and his homeruns number is great for a
shortstop but position where a player plays means little when one talks about
all time greats. I have to say statistically if I did look at postions and who
had the best stats at them. I would have to say Ripken obviously is one of the
best at that position but still falls short of Hall of Fame by my standards. If
you think the Hall of Fame is based on ranking people by postion then I see
your reasoning on Ripken. I just see the Hall of Fame for players who are the
best, not best at their postion.
Thomas R Scudder
Fore Steven James (sjf...@jove.acs.unt.edu) asieoniezi:
: On 11 Mar 1998, Desponded1 wrote:
: [snip]
: >
: > You say Ryan is only in becasue his longevity but that is my point! He
: > dominated for a long time isn't that the whole point?
: No. The point is that he DIDN'T "dominate"; was there ever a season in
: which he was the best pitcher in the league, much less baseball? Or even
: close?
National League, 1987. (This one wasn't THAT hard, was it?)
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
"All of the below information are true facts, and or posts to Usenet."
- Archimedes Plutonium
DougP001
>>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
>>the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
>>qualify him for the HOF?
>
>I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers.
Then you should open your eyes, stop fixating on BA as the principal
measure of a player's ability, and focus on the sentence I wrote. Are
you arguing that *no* AL shortstop belongs in the Hall of Fame? Because
there sure as hell aren't any more qualified than Ripken.
>Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
>you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
>the elite and not very good players.
Ripken *is* the elite among AL shortstops, and the second or third
best shortstop in major league history. If Ripken's not qualified, then
neither are Stan Musial or Mickey Mantle.
>As for Ryan , I said before batters rarely got a hit off him
Yet they still managed to beat him 292 times (Ryan lost more games
in the 20th century than any other pitcher), and his ERA, adjusted
for his era and ballpark, isn't among the top 100.
>If you don't believe batters had a hard time hitting Ryan just look and see
>what batters batting average against him was for Ryan's career, he was one
>of the hardest if not the hardest to get a hit off of(That sounds like Hall
of
>Famer stuff to me).
He's #1 on the list. Others in the all-time top 10 include Sid Fernandez,
Andy Messersmith, J.R. Richard, Sam McDowell and Mario Soto. Do
those sound like Hall of Famers to you, too?
Doug Pappas
Not a Pretty Girl
As I lay dying, Desponded1 (despo...@aol.com) whispered:
: You say Ryan is only in becasue his longevity but that is my point! He
: dominated for a long time isn't that the whole point? He dominated that long
: that makes him that much worthy of the Hall of Fame?
That's where we differ; I don't think that he dominated for all
of those years any more than Phil Niekro or Don Sutton did.
Unless you're willing to call Niekro and Sutton deserving
HoF'ers in your pickier HoF, Ryan doesn't belong there either.
: If Ryan had not played all
: those years and stop when he was at his peak his ERA would have been much
: better and because he played those extra years his ERA was affected
: some.
Actually, some of Ryan's best years came at the end of his
career. He didn't really have much control until later in his
career and he gave up fewer unearned runs in Houston. And he
pitched in huge pitchers' parks for his entire career.
: Ryan
: wasn't a gimmick. The man pitched 27 years and over 5300 inning with an ERA
: around 3.2 runs a game.
And Niekro pitched 24 years with 5400 IP and a 3.35 ERA in
much more dangerous parks. Perry pitched 5351 innings with a
3.11 ERA, Don Sutton pitched 5280 innings with a 3.26 ERA,
Carlton pitched 5217 innings with a 3.22 ERA, and even Blyleven
had 4969 IP with a 3.31 ERA. Ryan wasn't a gimmick, but he's
far from unique as far as his pitching performance other than
that he got lots of strikeouts and most pitchers got more fly
outs and ground outs. And I thought you were trying to be
more selective than that in your HoF.
: You say he had some non-dominant perforances. Well,
: name me any pitcher who didn't ? All I was saying is he pitched alot of games
: where he held batters to just a few hits. I bet you can't name
: another pitcher who accomplished that feat.
Ryan had 61 shutouts. In much shorter careers, Seaver had 61,
Blyleven had 60, Sutton had 58, Gibson had 56, Carlton had 55,
Palmer had 53, and Marichal had 52. Despite the no-hitters,
Ryan wasn't especially good at completely shutting down his
opponents on a regular basis. Even Clemens has 41 shutouts
after 14 seasons in a much higher offensive era and a hitter's
park. If you only allow 3 hits and still give up 4 runs, you
don't get a prize. And no-hitters are impressive, but they
don't help out a team any more than a normal shutout. That
still leaves 712 starts where Ryan wasn't completely
dominant. Shutting out your opponent in less than 8% of your
starts is not dominant for an upper-echelon HoF.
: I agree maybe one can look at all his walks and
: all his wild pitches but I think his other accomplishments out number those
: thing very easily. I don't think Ryan was just a pitcher who pitch some very
: low hit games. Ryan pitch well in alot of games and he wouldn't have been
: around as long as he did if he had not. Bottom line, Ryan obviously dominated
: if he didn't he wouldn't have lasted 27 years.
No, he was good for 27 years and people overestimated his
value because of the strikeouts. Dominance is when you
overpower your opponents like Maddux has done over the last 5
years or like Clemens did in the early 90's. Ryan never had
that kind of dominance except for one season, 1981. But he
got a lot of style points because he struck out people and
the fans ignored the actual results of the majority of his starts.
Or to flip your argument around, Phil Niekro obviously
dominated. If he didn't, he wouldn't have lasted 24 years and
pitched more innings than Ryan. And Sutton practically
defines the word "dominance" based on his career.
: As far as his wins and lost
: record goes, that is something a pitcher can't control.
Quite frankly, I don't care whether Ryan won 400 games or 200
games. I never mentioned W/L record.
: I agree on Ripken as being a very good choice as a shortstop. He is an very
: good player and plays hard every day. He is a role model and what I
: wish a lot of other whinning players in baseball would be
: like. However, he lacks in statistics.
This is what I don't understand. Ryan was just very good for
a long time and you call that dominance. Ripken is very good
to excellent with 2 MVP's and that's not dominance? Ripken is
a far more valuable player than Ryan.
: His average is too low and his homeruns number is great for a
: shortstop but position where a player plays means little when one
: talks about all time greats.
No, position matters a lot. Johnny Bench would just be
another good player if he were a 1B. Ozzie Smith would be
fairly useless in your eyes since he didn't put up good
stats. And Jackie Robinson, Yogi Berra, and Tony Gwynn aren't
anywhere close to Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, or Ted Williams.
But in baseball, defense means a lot. Otherwise, you could
put Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Frank Thomas, Tino Martinez,
Mo Vaughn, Rafael Palmeiro, John Olerud, and Jim Thome on the
field at the same time in a Japan vs. USA all-star game. If
you don't pay attention to position, you're talking about roto
ball, not real baseball.
Ripken had outstanding defense, which is important in real
baseball. He is one of the top 4 offensive SS in history,
which is a huge advantage over all those teams that have to
play Mike Bordick and Ozzie Guillen in the field. That
combination makes him much more valuable than a Jim Thome or
Mo Vaughn, who are legitimately awesome offensive players, but
not the best players at their position.
: If you think the Hall of Fame is based on ranking people by postion
: then I see your reasoning on Ripken. I just see the Hall of Fame for
: players who are the best, not best at their postion.
The Hall of Fame is about honoring the best baseball players.
Your Hall seems to be based solely on certain random offensive
stats, like batting average and strikeouts, that don't even
measure the value of the players. Ripken was valuable because
he was several wins better than his competition on other
teams year after year. Ryan didn't do that, but he struck out
a lot of hitters. Ripken had more outstanding seasons than
Ryan, but Ryan had 20-30 really good games, less than a
season's worth of starts, that persuade you to choose him over
Ripken.
Confusedly,
Hyoun, who tries to analyze value based on a player's contributionto
his team, not on random stats that emphasize some special talent.
Jstu9
>I agree on Ripken as being a very good choice as a shortstop. He is an very
>good player and plays hard every day. He is a role model and what I wish
His "working hard" and being a role model have nothing to do with why most of
us think Cal Ripken is a no-brainer HOFer.
>However, he lacks in statistics.His average is too low and his homeruns number
is
> great for a shortstop but position where a player plays means little when one
talks
> about all time greats.
Position means alot when considering all time greats.
> I have to say statistically if I did look at postions and who had the best
stats at them.
>I would have to say Ripken obviously is one of the best at that position but
still falls
> short of Hall of Fame by my standards.
I guess that's fine, but your HOF is going to be very small. Which is fine, I
guess.
You won't be listing any catchers. Maybe 1 SS in Wagner. Maybe 1 2B in Hornsby.
Maybe one or two 3B.
You are saying that Johnny Bench is not a Hall of Famer.
>If you think the Hall of Fame is based on ranking people by postion then I see
>your reasoning on Ripken. I just see the Hall of Fame for players who are the
>best, not best at their postion.
I guess I sort of see your argument, but you are completely ignoring defense
and defensive positions when you say that. And thus, much of baseball is being
lost to you.
Actually, please list who would be in your HOF. It won't take that much time to
type it up.
jls
David Marc Nieporent
In <19980310220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> claimed:
>>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
>>the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
>>qualify him for the HOF?
>I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers.
Hint: batting average doesn't measure offense.
>Yes , he played
>Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
>legends? Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
>you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
>the elite and not very good players.
If people have to be as good as Ted Williams to make the HOF, then your
HOF has ten people in it.
>As for Ryan , I said before batters rarely got a hit off him .How many
>no-hitters and how many one-hitters and how many shutouts and complete
>games? If you don't believe batters had a hard time hitting Ryan just
>look and see what batters batting average against him was for Ryan's
>career, he was one of the hardest if not the hardest to get a hit off
>of(That sounds like Hall of Famer stuff to me). You don't think he
>dominated the league during his career? I bet batters that faced him
>would say he did.
They'd be wrong. The pitcher's job is to prevent runs, not hits. He
didn't dominate at that. Throwing seven no-hitters is interesting, but
it's seven games out of, what, 1000 in his career?
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
1L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
DougP001
>
>Now, if Desponded wants just the elite, maybe he wants to cut the list
>off at 25. Is Ripken in the top 25? Maybe not, and furthermore, maybe
>the only SS in the top 25 is Wagner. Maybe the top 25 is dominated by
>outfielders, first basemen, and pitchers.
Perhaps, but Desponded also champions Nolan Ryan, who by any
objective measure is far behind Ripken. (Through 1996, Total Baseball
ranks Ripken in a tie for 49th best of all time, with 41.3 net wins; Ryan is
253rd, at 20.8.)
Doug Pappas
Jim Mann
David Marc Nieporent wrote in message
<6e5d1i$h...@pluto.njcc.com>...
>
>If people have to be as good as Ted Williams to make the HOF,
then your
>HOF has ten people in it.
>
Well, a two position player hall, anyway. Based on the fact that
he wants to include Ryan, I assume his hall of fame is Ruth,
Williams, and about 30-40 pitchers.
*****************************************************************
*
Jim Mann jma...@transarc.com
http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/
Marriage should be a balanced stalemate between equal
adversaries. -- Amelia Peabody
David Marc Nieporent
I think this post is worth a few MoseyPoints.
In <19980310204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> claimed:
>>He was an excellent defensive SS who has 370 career HR.
>> Besides Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan, has there been a
>> better SS in baseball history, considering both peak and
>> career value?
>I am not out to knock Ripken but just because he played shortstop and hit alot
>of homerun in a time its seem homeruns are going out of parks like crazy
>doesn't mean he is a hall of famer. Regardless where a person plays in the
>field he still needs to dominate something Ripken hasn't done in his
>career. he is a .275 hitter with some power and that is all he is. Don't
>get me wrong he is very good but to put in the same class as Maddux and
>Clemens he isn't.
Hint: Punctuation is your friend.
I noticed how you ignored the point you were allegedly responding to: name
three better SSs in history.
>As far as Ryan just look up what kind of batting average against him
>batters had they didn't hit very well at all. I know he walked alot of
>batters but I think he has one of the lowest batting average against him
>in history. Yes, his ERA isn't great but how many people even come close
>to pitching as many inning as he did. He had 7 no-hitters and a dozen
>one-hitters and how many shut-outs ? There is no doubt he dominate the
>league and is not just a barely worthy Hall of Famer.
Hint: Grammar is your friend.
Hint: the pitcher's job is to prevent runs, not to prevent hits.
>> This is kind of an odd mix. You have 2 of the 3 best LF's
>> of all time (Bonds is #2 or #3, depending on how you measure
>> these things), the best 2B of all time, and two very good
>> pitchers with peaks below Maddux and Clemens.
>As far as putting the right mix of worthy pick I didn't have any reason
>I just named a few off hand that is all. Carlton and Seaver are not just
>two very good pitchers with peaks below Clemens. I think they have
>numbers equal or better to him. Maddux on the other hand is a pitcher
>with better numbers and I agree on that.
Carlton isn't close to Clemens; Seaver is.
David Marc Nieporent
>>Actually, the best one-line description of Ripken is "the starting SS on
>>the all-time American League all-star team." You don't think that should
>>qualify him for the HOF?
>I just don't believe a .275 hitter is Hall of Fame numbers.
Hint: batting average doesn't measure offense.
>Yes , he played
>Shortstop and put up good numbers but does his name belong next to other
>legends? Do you think of Ripken's name next to Babe Ruth and TedWilliams when
>you think of Hall of Fame members? I think the Hall of Fame should only hold
>the elite and not very good players.
If people have to be as good as Ted Williams to make the HOF, then your
HOF has ten people in it.
>As for Ryan , I said before batters rarely got a hit off him .How many
>no-hitters and how many one-hitters and how many shutouts and complete
>games? If you don't believe batters had a hard time hitting Ryan just
>look and see what batters batting average against him was for Ryan's
>career, he was one of the hardest if not the hardest to get a hit off
>of(That sounds like Hall of Famer stuff to me). You don't think he
>dominated the league during his career? I bet batters that faced him
>would say he did.
They'd be wrong. The pitcher's job is to prevent runs, not hits. He
didn't dominate at that. Throwing seven no-hitters is interesting, but
it's seven games out of, what, 1000 in his career?
--
Bjjp2
Before everyone jumps all over "Desponded", I wanted to point out that I get
the feeling he's-- how shall I say this-- not that old.
David Marc Nieporent
In <3505CB...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:
>John Krempasky:
>> So again, you're saying that basically, almost catchers, second
>> basemen, or shortstops should be in the Hall of Fame, that it should
>> be populated by pretty much nothing but Outfielders and First Basemen?
>Desponded1:
>> >I just see the Hall of Fame for players who are the
>> >best, not best at their position.
>I think Desponded wants to limit the Hall to the very best players --
>the ones he calls the "elite."
No, he doesn't. Because he named Nolan Ryan and Tony Gwynn as people he
thought of as HOFers. It seems like he wants to limit the Hall to people
who concentrated all their talents into one small area.
>The Hall could be limited that way. There could be one player elected
>for every U.S. president since 1876. What would that give us? 20 or 25
>members of the Hall? And we could elect one more as soon as Clinton's
>gone. And another 4 or 8 years after that.
>Or how about one HOFer for every Nobel Prize in physics?
>If you did something like that, you'd certainly have the elite, and you
>probably wouldn't have that shortstop/third baseman from Baltimore.
>Desponded's point of view is defensible. Anybody who argues with him is
>just saying that we want more people in hte Hall. Ultimately, that's
>the question. Should there be 20? 40? 80? 160? 320? 640? 1280?
>2560? 5120?
As I said, it's not defensible. One can argue for such a tiny Hall that
Cal Ripken isn't in, but one cannot argue for a Hall such that Ripken is
out but Gwynn and Ryan are in
>Or should everybody who's five years retired from baseball get in?
Except Pete Rose, yeah.
James Weisberg
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98031...@jove.acs.unt.edu>,
Fore Steven James <sjf...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>No. The point is that he DIDN'T "dominate"; was there ever a season in
>which he was the best pitcher in the league, much less baseball? Or even
>close?
Are you kidding me? There were some years in the 70s where he
was *definitely* close. In 1981 and 1987, he was probably the
best pitcher in the NL. In 1988-1991 he was darn close. The
aged Nolan Ryan finally had some great control, leading the
league in WHIP two years in a row, and at the same time was
a dominating as anyone, with the lowest opponents BA and OBA.
The only knock on Ryan of that time was that he was no longer
the super-durable pitcher.
Anyway, there is no question Nolan Ryan belongs in the
inner circle of the HOF in my mind. You have to remember
that Ryan pitched forever. Whatever lapse of control he may
have shown early on, he was still effective. But then he
had a whole OTHER career where he was very effective. The
Nolan Ryan after 1981 was a more than a very good pitcher --
he was a *great* pitcher, with pinpoint control and a
fastball that still hummed by everyone. That Nolan Ryan
pitched 13 seasons. That performance alone is HOF worthy.
David Grabiner
tom...@umich.edu (Thomas R Scudder) writes:
> Fore Steven James (sjf...@jove.acs.unt.edu) asieoniezi:
> : On 11 Mar 1998, Desponded1 wrote:
> : [snip]
> : >
> : > You say Ryan is only in becasue his longevity but that is my point! He
> : > dominated for a long time isn't that the whole point?
> : No. The point is that he DIDN'T "dominate"; was there ever a season in
> : which he was the best pitcher in the league, much less baseball? Or even
> : close?
> National League, 1987. (This one wasn't THAT hard, was it?)
Also NL, 1981 (1.69 ERA is pretty impressive even in Houston), and
possible AL, 1977 (third in the league in ERA, but also third in innings
and thus more valuable that the two pitchers above him in fewer
innings).
According to TBIII, those were the three years he led the league in runs
prevented beyond what an average pitcher would allow. None of the three
years was truly dominant; in all three years, he was one run better than
the second-best pitcher.
For most of the rest of his career, he was about average, although he
had a few other good years and no really bad ones. This is basically
what you would expect from a pitcher who was ten runs better than
average in ability every season; he would be one of the league's top
pitchers at +30 runs in his good years, and below average at -10 in his
bad years.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Desponded1
>I noticed how you ignored the point you were allegedly responding to: name
>three better SSs in history.
I said " postion means very little". The fact remains Ripken's batting average
is only .275. Please explain how that makes one a Hall of Famer?
Would you said Jose Canseco is a Hall of Famer? His numbers are very close to
Cal Ripkens lifetime stats in average and Homeruns. I bet you don't think
Canseco deverses Hall of Fame membership! So why does Ripken deserves it?
Don't put a person in just because there aren't any great shortstops. All I'm
saying is Cal Ripken doesn't have numbers that ranks with the best players of
all time.
Maybe the Hall of Fame should induct Eddie Gaedel in the Hall of Fame since he
has the most walks for a midget.
Desponded1
>No, he doesn't. Because he named Nolan Ryan and Tony Gwynn as people he
>thought of as HOFers. It seems like he wants to limit the Hall to people
>who concentrated all their talents into one small area.
>
>
I don't think Gwynn's 8 batting titles and Ryan ranking among other greats in
career wins,strikeouts,innings and shutouts as having talents just concentrated
in one small area. Those stats are major ones.
Where does Ripken ranks on the all time list of batting average and homeruns?
I don't even think Ripken is close to being the best defensive shortstop ever.
Ozzie Smith was the best. Ripken didn't have the range Smith had. If I had to
pick between Ripken and Smith, I would choose Smith. Reason for this is Smith
could stop the other team from scoring runs more than Ripken could produce run
for his team with his bat.
I'm lost! Ripken's batting statistics isn't among the best ever and defensively
he isn't near the best so why is he worthy of the Hall of Fame?
Feel free to comment about this. I am curious about what people think.
Desponded1
>He's #1 on the list. Others in the all-time top 10 include Sid Fernandez,
>Andy Messersmith, J.R. Richard, Sam McDowell and Mario Soto. Do
>those sound like Hall of Famers to you, too?
Those other pitchers didn't pitch 5400 inning either. I think there is a
difference between 5400 inning and 2000 innings.
David J. Craven
>>I noticed how you ignored the point you were allegedly responding to: name
>>three better SSs in history.
>I said " postion means very little". The fact remains Ripken's batting average
>is only .275. Please explain how that makes one a Hall of Famer?
And why is batting average the only measure of a players value? Ripken
played/s a fielding critical position. He was one of the best to ever field
this position. He also is one of the best to ever hit at his position. Under
your theory, you would reward one dimensional players, those who met the
single dimension of a "batting average". Someone elses one dimensional hall
of fame would reward players with good dugout chemistry, while yet others
would look solely at fielding.
Don't you think that there is something wrong with a hall of fame that
includes lots of outfielders and first basemen, but one ss, and maybe two
catchers, two third basemen and maybe on second basemen?
And by the way.... we have lots of guys in the Hall of Fame with batting
averages under .200... they are called the pitchers. Obviously none of them
should be in the HOF.
>Would you said Jose Canseco is a Hall of Famer? His numbers are very close to
>Cal Ripkens lifetime stats in average and Homeruns. I bet you don't think
>Canseco deverses Hall of Fame membership! So why does Ripken deserves it?
Because Jose is not a shortstop.....
>Don't put a person in just because there aren't any great shortstops. All I'm
>saying is Cal Ripken doesn't have numbers that ranks with the best players of
>all time.
Uh... yes he does. His overall numbers certainly do... but if you focus on a
single number you can argue that any player is not fit for the hall of fame
(well except perhaps for Ty Cobb, who seems to be the only position player
that meets every test that I can come up with...) For example, Babe Ruth had
almost no stolen bases, how can we put him in the Hall of Fame... Mickey
Mantle was, at the end of his career the all time strike out king and so on....
>Maybe the Hall of Fame should induct Eddie Gaedel in the Hall of Fame since he
>has the most walks for a midget.
"Midget" is not a position. It is the baseball hall of fame, not the
Outfielders and Firstbasemen who can hit but can't necessarily field hall of
fame.
David J. Craven
>I don't even think Ripken is close to being the best defensive shortstop ever.
>Ozzie Smith was the best. Ripken didn't have the range Smith had. If I had to
>pick between Ripken and Smith, I would choose Smith. Reason for this is Smith
>could stop the other team from scoring runs more than Ripken could produce run
>for his team with his bat.
And you would be wrong. The various defensive stats which are kept make a
pretty good case that Cal was as good, if not better than Ozzie at doing the
most critical thing, turning balls hit to him into outs. If you look, for
example at Zone Rating and compare him to another SS with a reputation of
being a defensive wonder, it becomes clear. Barry Larkin's third best season
is equal to Cal's worst season.....
>I'm lost! Ripken's batting statistics isn't among the best ever and defensively
>he isn't near the best so why is he worthy of the Hall of Fame?
But you are wrong... as a shortstop Cal is one of the best hitting ss of all
time, one of the career leaders in doubles, most HR for a shortstop by a good
margin, and arguably was one of the four or five best fielding SS in the
history of the game. But then baseball is complex, and perhaps you simply
haven't looked at the numbers in any detail. (HINT: Batting average is
really rather overrated...)
Ted Mennie
In article <19980311202...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> wrote:
>I said " postion means very little". The fact remains Ripken's batting average
>is only .275. Please explain how that makes one a Hall of Famer?
If one contributes as much to a team's winning as Ripken has, then a .275
batting average is no impediment to Hall of Fame membership. It's a Hall
for the best players, not a Hall of High Batting Averages. Ripken was
one of the best defensive and offensive shortstops throughout the 1980's,
and won 2 MVP's. This isn't a punch-and-judy .275 slapdash hitter.
>Don't put a person in just because there aren't any great shortstops.
>
>Maybe the Hall of Fame should induct Eddie Gaedel in the Hall of Fame since he
>has the most walks for a midget.
Many World Champion teams have succeeded without a midget. With the
possible exception of the 1968 Detroit Tigers, there's never been a World
Champion that didn't have a shortstop.
>All I'm
>saying is Cal Ripken doesn't have numbers that ranks with the best players of
>all time.
The best three? No. The best fifty? He most certainly does have those
numbers. Certainly better numbers than Tony Gwynn.
--
You're just a drifter who found a bag of mail.
http://www.radix,net/~moe
Crafruso
DE>>No, he doesn't. Because he named Nolan Ryan and Tony Gwynn as people he
DE>>thought of as HOFers. It seems like he wants to limit the Hall to people
DE>>who concentrated all their talents into one small area.
DE>>
DE>>
DE>I don't think Gwynn's 8 batting titles and Ryan ranking among other greats i
DE>career wins,strikeouts,innings and shutouts as having talents just concentra
DE>in one small area. Those stats are major ones.
DE>Where does Ripken ranks on the all time list of batting average and homeruns
DE>I don't even think Ripken is close to being the best defensive shortstop ev
DE>Ozzie Smith was the best. Ripken didn't have the range Smith had. If I had t
DE>pick between Ripken and Smith, I would choose Smith. Reason for this is Smit
DE>could stop the other team from scoring runs more than Ripken could produce
DE>for his team with his bat.
While he wasn't as good as Ozzie (who was?) Cal's range is nothing to
sneer at. He isn't flashy, but very little got by him at short,
primarily because he knew his limitations and strengths. Correct
positioning and a strong arm allowed him to play deeper than most
shortstops, and make easy-looking plays on balls others would have to
dive for. Thus, his fielding didn't make TWIB highlights, but the outs
and assists totals he had were VERY good.
DE>I'm lost! Ripken's batting statistics isn't among the best ever and defensiv
DE>he isn't near the best so why is he worthy of the Hall of Fame?
However, his batting stats are among the best for shortstops ever, and
his defensive ability is much better than you seem to think it is.
DE>Feel free to comment about this. I am curious about what people think.
Besides the above reasoning, if Nolan Ryan deserves in the HoF primarily
because of the strikeouts and no-hitters (the 3.2 ERA isn't anything
special) and "years of service" then surely you think Cal deserves it
for the consecutive game record.
Me - I'd vite for both of them.
Russ Craft
--
This message comes from NaSCOM, the official internet server of NaSPA, THE
Network and System Professionals Assocation, with over 40,000 members in 72
countries. Contact http://www.naspa.net for free trial membership or
X116 or fax (414) 768-8001 or (414) 768-8000 x116 voice.
Crafruso
MO>In article <19980311202...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
MO>Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> wrote:
MO>>I said " postion means very little". The fact remains Ripken's batting aver
MO>>is only .275. Please explain how that makes one a Hall of Famer?
MO>If one contributes as much to a team's winning as Ripken has, then a .275
MO>batting average is no impediment to Hall of Fame membership. It's a Hall
MO>for the best players, not a Hall of High Batting Averages. Ripken was
MO>one of the best defensive and offensive shortstops throughout the 1980's,
MO>and won 2 MVP's. This isn't a punch-and-judy .275 slapdash hitter.
MO>>Don't put a person in just because there aren't any great shortstops.
MO>>
MO>>Maybe the Hall of Fame should induct Eddie Gaedel in the Hall of Fame since
MO>>has the most walks for a midget.
MO>Many World Champion teams have succeeded without a midget. With the
MO>possible exception of the 1968 Detroit Tigers, there's never been a World
MO>Champion that didn't have a shortstop.
How about the '85 Royals? Buddy Biancalana???
MO>>All I'm
MO>>saying is Cal Ripken doesn't have numbers that ranks with the best players
MO>>all time.
MO>The best three? No. The best fifty? He most certainly does have those
MO>numbers. Certainly better numbers than Tony Gwynn.
MO>--
MO> You're just a drifter who found a bag of mail.
MO> http://www.radix,net/~moe
DougP001
In article <19980311202...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, despo...@aol.com
(Desponded1) writes:
>>I noticed how you ignored the point you were allegedly responding to: name
>>three better SSs in history.
>
>I said " postion means very little".
Okay, that's *an* answer. A stupid one, perhaps, but it's yours.
Can you explain WHY "position means very little"? Are you arguing that
each position is equally important defensively? That defense itself doesn't
matter? Haven't you wondered why 30 LFs/RFs/1B have hit more career
HR than any SS or 2Bman, or why teams continue to play such bad-
hitting shortstops instead of moving a spare OF into the position?
>The fact remains Ripken's batting
>average is only .275. Please explain how that makes one a Hall of Famer?
It doesn't...but HOF qualifications don't start with, and aren't limited to,
batting average.
>Would you said Jose Canseco is a Hall of Famer? His numbers are very close to
>Cal Ripkens lifetime stats in average and Homeruns. I bet you don't think
>Canseco deverses Hall of Fame membership! So why does Ripken deserves it?
Because Ripken is a great-fielding shortstop and Canseco is a terrible-
fielding LF/DH.
And even accepting your idiotic premise that "position means very little," are
you claiming that defense is *entirely* irrelevant to a player's HOF
credentials?
>Don't put a person in just because there aren't any great shortstops.
Look up Honus Wagner someday.
>All I'm
>saying is Cal Ripken doesn't have numbers that ranks with the best players of
>all time.
You wouldn't know a great player if you tripped over one. You're the
caricature of a stathead, worshiping numbers while ignoring their context.
(If you think position doesn't matter, I'd hate to hear your views on park
and era adjustments.) You're even fixated on the WRONG numbers.
Doug Pappas
DougP001
In article <19980311205...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, despo...@aol.com
(Desponded1) writes:
>I don't even think Ripken is close to being the best defensive shortstop
>ever.Ozzie Smith was the best. Ripken didn't have the range Smith had.
Ripken wasn't as flashy, but he was at least 95% as effective. Defensively,
there's no more than five runs/season difference between the two -- and
Cal was much more than five runs/season better with the bat.
>If I had to
>pick between Ripken and Smith, I would choose Smith.
>Reason for this is Smith
>could stop the other team from scoring runs more than Ripken could produce
>run for his team with his bat.
And you know this how? The defensive difference between Smith and
Ripken *might* be as many as 10 singles/year. The offensive difference
is about 25 HR/year.
Doug Pappas
t.thayer
>
> I'm lost! Ripken's batting statistics isn't among the best ever and
defensively
> he isn't near the best so why is he worthy of the Hall of Fame?
>
> Feel free to comment about this. I am curious about what people think.
When evaluating a player defensively try looking at batting average, on
base pct. , and slugging pct. together to get a more complete picture of
that player's offensive capabilities. Fielding is tough to consider since
there is no adequate way to compare offensive and defensive numbers, but
must be considered nevertheless because it definitely is a major part of
the game.
Ripken wasn't great offensively and was great but not the best defensively
but put good offense and great defense together to make a HOF career.
John Krempasky
Ok, let me put it this way:
You have a shortstop that is 27 years old, and batted .270 with 25 home runs
last year, and is considered one of the best fielders at his position.
You are offered, in a trade, a first baseman that is 27 years old, and
batted .285 with 35 home runs last year, and he's considered one of the best
hitters at his position.
Do you take the deal, Desponded? If you do, you are a complete idiot. You
just made your team worse.
That's why positions matter.
Desponded1
.>It doesn't...but HOF qualifications don't start with, and aren't limited to,
>batting average.
I'm really confused?? I keep hearing battling average isn't important. Ok then
I guess Dave Kingman should be in the Hall of Fame with his 440 Homeruns and
everyone should just ignore his average of .238.
If Kingman had a better average he would be in the Hall of Fame. So batting
average does limit one from being in the Hall of Fame.
David Marc Nieporent
In <19980311205...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> claimed:
>>No, he doesn't. Because he named Nolan Ryan and Tony Gwynn as people he
>>thought of as HOFers. It seems like he wants to limit the Hall to people
>>who concentrated all their talents into one small area.
>I don't think Gwynn's 8 batting titles and Ryan ranking among other
>greats in career wins,strikeouts,innings and shutouts as having talents
>just concentrated in one small area. Those stats are major ones.
No, not really. Neither batting average nor strikeouts are major areas.
The idea is to create and prevent *runs*, not *hits.*
>Where does Ripken ranks on the all time list of batting average and homeruns?
He's not on any batting average list.
He's 38th all time in homers (and rising), and first all time in homers
among shortstops.
>I don't even think Ripken is close to being the best defensive
>shortstop ever. Ozzie Smith was the best. Ripken didn't have the range
>Smith had. If I had to pick between Ripken and Smith, I would choose
>Smith. Reason for this is Smith could stop the other team from scoring
>runs more than Ripken could produce run for his team with his bat.
No, Ripken isn't the best defensive shortstop ever. He's one of the best.
You're making the wrong comparison; it's Smith's glove+bat vs. Ripken's
glove+bat.
>I'm lost! Ripken's batting statistics isn't among the best ever and
>defensively he isn't near the best so why is he worthy of the Hall of
>Fame?
I thought it was explained to you. His batting stats *are* among the best
ever, for a shortstop, and defensively he was excellent. That makes him
the second or third best shortstop of all time.
Once more: find an AL shortstop who had a better career than him. You
have almost a century to look at. You can't. That's why he's worthy of
the Hall of Fame. If "best AL shortstop ever" isn't a HOFer, what is?
David Marc Nieporent
In <19980311202...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> claimed:
>>I noticed how you ignored the point you were allegedly responding to: name
>>three better SSs in history.
>I said " postion means very little".
Then you need to watch a baseball game sometime. You'll see that every
team needs a shortstop. You can't take the nine people on the team with
the best offensive numbers and put them in the lineup. You need a
shortstop.
>The fact remains Ripken's batting average
>is only .275. Please explain how that makes one a Hall of Famer?
It doesn't. It doesn't _not_ make him one, either. Batting average is
not an important stat.
>Would you said Jose Canseco is a Hall of Famer? His numbers are very close to
>Cal Ripkens lifetime stats in average and Homeruns. I bet you don't think
>Canseco deverses Hall of Fame membership! So why does Ripken deserves it?
Because he plays shortstop. Which means he contributes a hell of a lot
more _defensively_ than Canseco.
(Not that "average and home runs" are the way to measure offense.)
>Don't put a person in just because there aren't any great shortstops.
>All I'm saying is Cal Ripken doesn't have numbers that ranks with the
>best players of all time.
But he does, much more so than the guys you named, Tony Gwynn or Nolan
Ryan.
It depends how you define "best players of all time," of course, but if
you requre everyone to have numbers as good as Ted Williams, then you have
two people in your HOF. That's not logically incorrect, but it's pretty
stupid. What sense does it make to recognize just two people? If you say
the top 50 players of all time or so, then Ripken *does* have numbers that
good.
>Maybe the Hall of Fame should induct Eddie Gaedel in the Hall of Fame
>since he has the most walks for a midget.
"Midget" isn't a baseball position. Shortstop is.
James Weisberg
In article <6e7a35$k...@pluto.njcc.com>,
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>I said " postion means very little".
>
>Then you need to watch a baseball game sometime. You'll see that every
>team needs a shortstop. You can't take the nine people on the team with
>the best offensive numbers and put them in the lineup. You need a
>shortstop.
That's funny. Seeings how were talking about the Orioles
and all, it sure as heck *looks* like they are trying to get
by without a shortstop!
James Weisberg
In article <ybgien08...@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>,
David Grabiner <grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
>If you restrict the Hall of Fame to players who were above average in
>every category, you'll have just two members: Willie Mays and George
>Grantham. (Grantham played second base in the NL in the 1920's, and was
>decent at everything but excelled in nothing.)
Ahem! I believe you forgot the Most Exhalted One.
Honus Wagner was pretty good at everything too. As well
as Speaker and Lajoie. What is it that you think these players
weren't above average at?
Jaime J. Weinman
I love this thread, and Mr. Despondent. I haven't seen such a good
old-fashioned batting-average-obsessive since...well, since me writing about
Tony Gwynn a year and a half ago. (I was younger and dumber.)
Since I can't add anything to the discussion, I'll just say this: we can
agree (most of us, anyway) that Ripken is a deserving HOF-er, but would he be a
sure thing if it wasn't for the streak? My feeling is that the BBWAA has never
quite got the hang of evaluating a shortstop, and that if Ripken came on the
ballot without the streak as his "hook," the voters would underrate his defense
and evaluate him as just another big slow power hitter. He'd get in eventually,
but it would take several years. As it is, he's likely to gain first-ballot
selection--which is as it should be.
And one more thing no one's mentioned: Look at Ripken's home/road splits in
his prime. The guy has lost a considerable number of home runs and several
points of batting average to his home park.
And still one more thing: Ripken has been a great offensive and defensive
player, but "Total Baseball's" rating of him for his 1984 season--9.0!--is
perhaps the weirdest rating in the whole book. He was superb that year,
but...well, it's one of those cases where certain statistical biases work
together, I guess.
Jaime J. Weinman
David Marc Nieporent
In <6e7l6d$7...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>>If you restrict the Hall of Fame to players who were above average in
>>every category, you'll have just two members: Willie Mays and George
>>Grantham. (Grantham played second base in the NL in the 1920's, and was
>>decent at everything but excelled in nothing.)
> Ahem! I believe you forgot the Most Exhalted One.
> Honus Wagner was pretty good at everything too. As well
>as Speaker and Lajoie. What is it that you think these players
>weren't above average at?
Hitting home runs. (Remember, Mr. Desponded refuses to look at relative
production. It's the absolute rank on these various lists that he keeps
citing.)
DougP001
In article <19980311234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, despo...@aol.com
(Desponded1) writes:
>>It doesn't...but HOF qualifications don't start with, and aren't limited to,
>>batting average.
>
>I'm really confused??
Agreed.
>I keep hearing battling average isn't important. Ok then
>I guess Dave Kingman should be in the Hall of Fame with his 440 Homeruns and
>everyone should just ignore his average of .238.
You keep leaping from one simplistic "analysis" to another. Kingman's
out because he did nothing well EXCEPT hit home runs. He posted a
lifetime OBP of .308, which would be bad for a middle infielder. Despite
the HRs, his lifetime SLG of .478 doesn't crack the career top 100. He
played easy defensive positions (LF, 1B) and played them badly.
If you're going to focus on numbers alone, at least use OBP and SLG
instead of BA and HR. Then we can move on to park and era adjustments...
Doug Pappas
Colin Campbell
I've got an idea for Mr. Desponded1. Let him pick an all-time team,
using Hall of Famers at each position except shortstop. We pick an
all-time team using non-Hall members, and we get to pick Desponded1's
shortstop. If the two teams played a hundred games, what would the
results be?
David Grabiner
despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
> .>It doesn't...but HOF qualifications don't start with, and aren't limited to,
> >batting average.
> I'm really confused?? I keep hearing battling average isn't important. Ok then
> I guess Dave Kingman should be in the Hall of Fame with his 440 Homeruns and
> everyone should just ignore his average of .238.
Batting average is important. Home runs are important. Defense is
important. Walks are important. Stoeln bases are important. And you
put these all together, balancing the positives against the negatives.
If you restrict the Hall of Fame to players who were above average in
every category, you'll have just two members: Willie Mays and George
Grantham. (Grantham played second base in the NL in the 1920's, and was
decent at everything but excelled in nothing.)
Lou Gehrig was a poor fielder. Mickey Mantle couldn't stay healthy.
Rod Carew had no power. Ernie Banks didn't walk much. Ted Williams had
no speed. Sandy Koufax had a very short career. I don't think there's
much question that any of these players belong in the Hall of Fame.
Ripken's .275 batting average is relatively low for a Hall of Famer, but
it's only one part of his play. His homers count, as does his lack of
speed, and his excellent defensive value.
Kingman's .238 average is also a negative, but it's combined with a lot
of other negatives. He didn't walk, or field, or run. He hit more
homers than anyone outside the Hall of Fame, and that's fair because
he hurt his teams in so many other ways.
Jstu9
>>Then you need to watch a baseball game sometime. You'll see that every
>>team needs a shortstop. You can't take the nine people on the team with
>>the best offensive numbers and put them in the lineup. You need a
>>shortstop.
>
> That's funny. Seeings how were talking about the Orioles
>and all, it sure as heck *looks* like they are trying to get
>by without a shortstop!
Actually, this proves the point that a SS does not need to hit like a 1B to be
a starter. A 1B who hits like Bordick wouldn't even make it to AA. But since
Bordick is deemed to have some defensive value, he plays.
This is just to point out the defensive importance of the SS position. And why
a SS who can hit like Ripken is far superior to a 1B with identical numbers.
jls
Jstu9
Ok, I'm curious. His team would win, probably fairly easily. I'm not sure who'd
he pick, but more than likely, he'll select a very good team. And we don't get
any Hall of Famers. We can pick a pretty good team, but I doubt it would
compete with his team.
jls
Ron Johnson
In article <6e7l6d$7...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> wrote:
>
> Ahem! I believe you forgot the Most Exhalted One.
>
> Honus Wagner was pretty good at everything too. As well
>as Speaker and Lajoie. What is it that you think these players
>weren't above average at?
Lajoie? That's easy. Look up his walk total. And considering the
era he played in, his SBs aren't a positive. Then there's the
17 HR he hit between 1905 and 1916. (Which isn't to say he
wasn't an exceptional player of course.)
The breadth of Wagner's skills are amazing:
Here's how he did on TB's leader boards:
Rank R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB BA OBP SLG PRO+ ABR SB
1 2 2 7 3 6 5 8 4 6 6 6 5
2 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 4
3 1 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 2
4 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1
And he lead the league 4 straight years in fielding % - and
this meant a lot more in his day than it does now.
The only area that he wasn't really strong in was in
taking walks. Even at that, he wasn't poor there. Somewhat
above average I think would be fair.
His low HR total was a product of the age he played in more than
anything else.
He was reputed to be very poor at contract negotiation. Some
how I think most teams would find this particular weakness
attractive.
Speaker was a poor percentage base stealer 164-129 (56%)
and not much of a HR hitter. Yes he won a HR crown in 1912
and hit as many as 17, Still, I think above average would be
stretching things here.
--
RNJ
Ivan Weiss
On 12 Mar 1998, Jstu9 wrote:
> > That's funny. Seeings how were talking about the Orioles
> >and all, it sure as heck *looks* like they are trying to get
> >by without a shortstop!
>
> Actually, this proves the point that a SS does not need to hit like a 1B to be
> a starter. A 1B who hits like Bordick wouldn't even make it to AA. But since
> Bordick is deemed to have some defensive value, he plays.
>
> This is just to point out the defensive importance of the SS position. And why
> a SS who can hit like Ripken is far superior to a 1B with identical numbers.
The O's did pretty well with Mark Belanger at SS, and he didn't hit a
lick. Defensively, my non-statistical, eyeball analysis rates him right
behind Ozzie as the best fielding SS I ever saw, and I go back to Roy
McMillan, Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese.
If someone comes up with stats that indicate Belanger wasn't that good,
that's just fine with me. Cal Ripken has said many times that he isn't as
good as Belanger was. The guy could just flat pick it. That he could be a
regular for so long, on so many good teams, with almost nonexistent
offense, shows the prime importance of the SS position.
Ivan Weiss Love: Temporary insanity, curable by marriage.
Vashon WA Ambrose Bierce -- "The Devil's Dictionary"
Ivan Weiss
On 12 Mar 1998, Jstu9 wrote:
I'll have a crack at that one. These are players I saw in person (since
1953). Let's look at peak value here. None of these guys are in the Hall.
1B: Ted Kluszewski, Keith Hernandez, Orlando Cepeda
2B: (who else) Bill Mazeroski
SS: Dave Concepcion, Mark Belanger
3B: Dick Allen, Ron Santo
LF: Minnie Minoso, Jimmy Wynn
CF: Fred Lynn
RF: Rocky Colavito, Carl Furillo
C: Thurman Munson, Ted Simmons
SP: JR Richard, Bob Veale, Ron Guidry, Vida Blue
RP: Dick Radatz
At their peak IMO, all these players had HOF ability. Most of them weren't
at peak ability long enough to get in. At the time they played, they were
considered dominating-type players in one department or another. Ask
anyone who had to hit against Bob Veale, for instance. I saw him pitch,
and trust me, he was as scary as Randy Johnson is today.
This is just off the top. Anyone else want to try? I'd go back to the
1930s or something, but these are players I saw.
Ivan Weiss
On 11 Mar 1998, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> > Ahem! I believe you forgot the Most Exhalted One.
> > Honus Wagner was pretty good at everything too. As well
> >as Speaker and Lajoie. What is it that you think these players
> >weren't above average at?
>
> Hitting home runs. (Remember, Mr. Desponded refuses to look at relative
> production. It's the absolute rank on these various lists that he keeps
> citing.)
Honus Wagner is one of only four players in history ever to lead the
league in stolen bases and slugging percentage in the same season. He did
it four times (!) So did Cobb. Willie Mays did it once. Can anyone name
the fourth player?
Desponded1
I keep hearing about Ripken's defensive skills as being among the best ever is
this really true? I mean if he was one of the best at that position why is at
third base now? I think the newsgroups would be full of responses about how
wrong it is that Ripken isn't at short for the O's
I have seen him play and I think of the words "steady" and "consistent" and not
the words "best ever" as far as defensively goes. He was above average and not
close to best ever.
Honesty could he get to balls that were hit that only the best ever shortstops
could reach and throw out a runner?
I like to hear what you think about his defensive skills. How do you rank him
compared to best shortstops of today? Is his defensive skills that much better
than the than above-average shortstops of today? How does he compare to the
best evers like Ozzie Smith ? I think the most important but not only ability a
shortstop needs is the ability to reach hit balls. Did Ripken have the range as
other greats had?I think he did very good with those balls he could get to and
he didn't commit alot of errors.
Is the Hall of Fame for those who are best at their position or is it for best
players of all-time?Does one have to make an impact on the game? Does he have
to dominate or excel in some area that is of significant importance such as
offensive numbers and defensive abilities? To me I think of a person has to
have a kind of " Legend" status. He must have/had been able to do something
that was far greater than other good to above average players could do.
I look at Ripken and see an above average hitter at best and an above average
defensive shortstop. The word great isn't there.Does Ripken have the same kind
of "legend" image that only other Great players had? I think just because he
played shortstop and hit the most homeruns at that position doesn't make him
great. Homeruns are going out of parks like crazy and Ripkens is maybe only
reach 400 in his career.Is 400 homeruns alot of Homeruns for a guy who will end
up playing 3000 games in his career?
I think everyone has different ideas of who is a Hall of Famer and I hope I
made some sence with this post on what I think.
Not a Pretty Girl
As I lay dying, Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) whispered:
: If someone comes up with stats that indicate Belanger wasn't that good,
: that's just fine with me. Cal Ripken has said many times that he isn't as
: good as Belanger was.
Sorry, but I can't do that. The stats also say that Belanger was
one hell of a defensive SS, though they say that Ozzie was better.
Both are statistically in the all-time defensive top 10 according to
Total Baseball.
: The guy could just flat pick it. That he could be a
: regular for so long, on so many good teams, with almost nonexistent
: offense, shows the prime importance of the SS position.
Exactly, and Belanger was an above-average player for many years
solely on the basis of his defense. 1B and LF just don't have that
kind of defensive impact.
Agreeingly,
Hyoun
--
\_____________ "...if you allow yourself to feel \_a___________
\_____________ the way you really feel, maybe you \___m__s______
\_____________ won't be afraid of that feeling \_____a_______
\_____________ anymore." \____i__t_____
\www.mosey.com tori amos \_________e___
\_____________ \_____________
hyoun park '99E hjp...@amherst.edu http://www.amherst.edu/~hjpark
Don Malcolm
Ivan Weiss wrote:
> On 11 Mar 1998, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> > > Ahem! I believe you forgot the Most Exhalted One.
> > > Honus Wagner was pretty good at everything too. As well
> > >as Speaker and Lajoie. What is it that you think these players
> > >weren't above average at?
> >
> > Hitting home runs. (Remember, Mr. Desponded refuses to look at relative
> > production. It's the absolute rank on these various lists that he keeps
> > citing.)
>
> Honus Wagner is one of only four players in history ever to lead the
> league in stolen bases and slugging percentage in the same season. He did
> it four times (!) So did Cobb. Willie Mays did it once. Can anyone name
> the fourth player?
Actually, Ivan, I can name that player three times:
Benny Kauff, 1915 (FL)
Chuck Klein, 1932 (NL)
Snuffy Stirnweiss 1945 (AL)
Which of the these three was the fourth, or is there a
"fourth fourth" that I've missed? :-)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Available now from Masters Press @ 1-800-9SPORTS
THE 1998 BIG BAD BASEBALL ANNUAL
--Off-beat, on-target, overflowing with data--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The BBBA web site has (finally) been re-launched...
featuring previews of the 1998 edition of BBBA
-- Visit it at http://www.backatcha.com --
Jstu9
>Is the Hall of Fame for those who are best at their position or is it for best
>players of all-time?
Ripken is one of the best players of all-time. Maybe it is simplified, but yes,
the best at one of the 8 fielding positions would be Hall of Famers.
>Does one have to make an impact on the game?
It's a consideration. You don't think Ripken has had an impact on the game?
> Does he have
>to dominate or excel in some area that is of significant importance such as
>offensive numbers and defensive abilities?
Depends on your definition of "dominate" but yes, they would need to be a great
player.
> To me I think of a person has to
>have a kind of " Legend" status.
"Iron Man" If Ripken isn't a playing Legend, I don't know who is.
>He must have/had been able to do something
>that was far greater than other good to above average players could do.
Sounds like Ripken to me.
>I look at Ripken and see an above average hitter at best and an above average
>defensive shortstop. The word great isn't there.
I assume your definition of great is different. If Ripken isn't a HOFer, then
you're not going to have too many players in your Hall.
>Does Ripken have the same kind of "legend" image that only other Great players
> had?
Obviously, you think not. I'm curious why you think not.
>Is 400 homeruns alot of Homeruns for a guy who will end
>up playing 3000 games in his career?
For a SS. Hell, yeah. Not that HR's are the end all for considering someone a
HOFer.
>I think everyone has different ideas of who is a Hall of Famer and I hope I
>made some sence with this post on what I think.
I'd like you to list who you think are worthy of the Hall of fame. Then, I can
see where you are coming from.
jls
Textus
The Ripken argument is, of course, silly. He's a HoFer, and so is Ozzie. The
comparison between them is unfair to Smith. In most cases, his D is enough
greater than another SS's O advantage that he makes a greater contribution --
and there were years in which he had the best SS O in his league. (Ripken was
active, so he didn't have the best in baseball; this is my version of Ripken
being the AL's greatest shortstop ever; the all-time competition is *really *
in the NL on this position.) But, as I think has been stated clearly, Ripken's
D was exceptional and therefcore he gets the nod because of a greater
difference between his and Ozzie's O.
As for Ryan, of course he's a HoFer, but a lot of us are going to hold our
noses. Not becauase he was of his wildness from 1969-77 so much as because of a
couple of those final years as mr. living legend. Did Nolan help the Rangers?
He did not. He used up a lot of salary to pitch home games, to sell a team that
didn't really compete. They replaced the Mariners as having the league's most
screwed up fielding. The total pitching staff was remarkably under-achieving
and some downright stupid decisions were made re manaaging the team which
really got cushioned from being adequately scrutinized because Nolan sold
tickets. This all sounds harsh, but I ws a Nolan fan for most of his career.
When I went to D-FW during baseball season, I'd love to go see him pitch. But I
can't sit back and say he had anything to do with winning a championship.
Ripken is going to be hurt a little on this front -- early success in pennant
races followed by his team's significant decline. Sounds a lot like Musial's
experience in St. Louis except not as many championships. But I still think he
is a HoF lock.
Gwynn I guess goes in. Does Boggs? He has played a greater role in pennant
races, and if we reward Tony for sticking with that sorry organization to be
his generation's George Brett then we really ought to penalize him for not
caring about whether he ever returns to the Series.
As should be obvious, I give a lot of weight to pennant contributions because
that is supposedly the point.
As to original question, of course there are unworthy members -- none so
glaring as one who will be inducted this season, IMO.
Crafruso
CH>In article <6e7a35$k...@pluto.njcc.com>,
CH>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
CH>>>I said " postion means very little".
CH>>
CH>>Then you need to watch a baseball game sometime. You'll see that every
CH>>team needs a shortstop. You can't take the nine people on the team with
CH>>the best offensive numbers and put them in the lineup. You need a
CH>>shortstop.
CH> That's funny. Seeings how were talking about the Orioles
CH>and all, it sure as heck *looks* like they are trying to get
CH>by without a shortstop!
CH>--
CH>World's Greatest Living Poster
Hey, they gotta shortstop - they're just playing him at 3rd!
Russ
--
This message comes from NaSCOM, the official internet server of NaSPA, THE
Network and System Professionals Assocation, with over 40,000 members in 72
countries. Contact http://www.naspa.net for free trial membership or
X116 or fax (414) 768-8001 or (414) 768-8000 x116 voice.
David Marc Nieporent
In <19980312125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> claimed:
>I keep hearing about Ripken's defensive skills as being among the best
>ever is this really true?
As best as we can tell these things, yes.
>I mean if he was one of the best at that position why is at third base
>now? I think the newsgroups would be full of responses about how
>wrong it is that Ripken isn't at short for the O's
They were, last year when it happened. Now it's just on asbb-o.
>I have seen him play and I think of the words "steady" and "consistent"
>and not the words "best ever" as far as defensively goes. He was above
>average and not close to best ever. Honesty could he get to balls that
>were hit that only the best ever shortstops could reach and throw out a
>runner?
Yes.
>I like to hear what you think about his defensive skills. How do you
>rank him compared to best shortstops of today? Is his defensive skills
>that much better than the than above-average shortstops of today?
Well, not his current skills, no, but his skills through the heart of his
career, yeah.
>How does he compare to the best evers like Ozzie Smith ? I think the
>most important but not only ability a shortstop needs is the ability to
>reach hit balls. Did Ripken have the range as other greats had?I think he
>did very good with those balls he could get to and he didn't commit alot
>of errors.
He wasn't as good as Smith, but then neither was anyone else in history.
He's as good as anybody else.
>Is the Hall of Fame for those who are best at their position or is it
>for best players of all-time?
Those are the same thing.
>>Does one have to make an impact on the game?
Sure. (Of course, that's such a vague statement that it's hard to know
what you mean by it, but Cal did.)
>Does he have
>to dominate or excel in some area that is of significant importance such as
>offensive numbers and defensive abilities? To me I think of a person has to
>have a kind of " Legend" status. He must have/had been able to do something
>that was far greater than other good to above average players could do.
Um, yeah, all those things describe Cal.
>I look at Ripken and see an above average hitter at best and an above
>average defensive shortstop. The word great isn't there.
Because you're not being consistent. Defensively you're comparing him to
other shortstops, but then offensively you're comparing him to
outfielders. Try being consistent, and then the word "great' will be
there.
>Does Ripken have the same kind
>of "legend" image that only other Great players had?
Er, yeah.
>I think just because he
>played shortstop and hit the most homeruns at that position doesn't make him
>great.
True; the home runs are illustrative. The fact that he's one of the top
2-3 hitters ever at shortstop -- not just homers, but overall offensive
value -- does make him great.
>Homeruns are going out of parks like crazy and Ripkens is maybe only
>reach 400 in his career.Is 400 homeruns alot of Homeruns for a guy who
>will end up playing 3000 games in his career?
For a shortstop, yeah. Actually, 400 HRs is a lot for anyone.
>I think everyone has different ideas of who is a Hall of Famer and I hope I
>made some sence with this post on what I think.
Ted Frank
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980312...@blaze.accessone.com>,
Ivan Weiss <iv...@blaze.accessone.com> wrote:
>The O's did pretty well with Mark Belanger at SS, and he didn't hit a
>lick.
Not quite true. When Belanger his .280 they won. When he hit .190 they
didn't.
Even with all his defensive skills.
--
You're just a drifter who found a bag of mail.
http://www.radix,net/~moe
Crafruso
DE>I keep hearing about Ripken's defensive skills as being among the best ever
DE>this really true? I mean if he was one of the best at that position why is a
DE>third base now? I think the newsgroups would be full of responses about how
DE>wrong it is that Ripken isn't at short for the O's
They are - at least the ones I frequent. You should have been here last
year!
DE>I have seen him play and I think of the words "steady" and "consistent" and
DE>the words "best ever" as far as defensively goes. He was above average and n
DE>close to best ever.
DE>Honesty could he get to balls that were hit that only the best ever shortsto
DE>could reach and throw out a runner?
Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for. Which is better,
Ozzie Smith making a diving one-handed grab at a ball, turning a
somersault and barely throwing the batter out a first, or Ripken playing
deeper and better positioned, cleanly fielding the same ball, whipping
it over to first with his strong arm, and making the same play. Both
are impressive plays, both are making the best use of their abilities,
both get the same results. Guess which one gets all the media
attention.
DE>I like to hear what you think about his defensive skills. How do you rank hi
DE>compared to best shortstops of today? Is his defensive skills that much bet
DE>than the than above-average shortstops of today? How does he compare to the
DE>best evers like Ozzie Smith ? I think the most important but not only abilit
DE>shortstop needs is the ability to reach hit balls. Did Ripken have the range
DE>other greats had?I think he did very good with those balls he could get to
DE>he didn't commit alot of errors.
Ripken got to a lot of balls, which is how you determine range. He just
doesn't look as impressive doing it. Since his lateral mobility wasn't
as good as the flashy shortstops, he made up for it with intelligent
positioning and his throwing arm.
DE>Is the Hall of Fame for those who are best at their position or is it for be
DE>players of all-time?Does one have to make an impact on the game? Does he hav
Most people believe that those who are best at their positions ARE the
best players of all time.
DE>to dominate or excel in some area that is of significant importance such as
DE>offensive numbers and defensive abilities? To me I think of a person has to
DE>have a kind of " Legend" status. He must have/had been able to do something
DE>that was far greater than other good to above average players could do.
DE>I look at Ripken and see an above average hitter at best and an above averag
DE>defensive shortstop. The word great isn't there.Does Ripken have the same ki
DE>of "legend" image that only other Great players had? I think just because
DE>played shortstop and hit the most homeruns at that position doesn't make him
DE>great. Homeruns are going out of parks like crazy and Ripkens is maybe only
DE>reach 400 in his career.Is 400 homeruns alot of Homeruns for a guy who will
DE>up playing 3000 games in his career?
400 homeruns is a lot yes. It's a phenominal number for a shortstop.
And you can't ignore position when comparing players. It isn't fair to
say 'you can't be in the HoF, even though you were the best at your
position ever, because we son't expect that much out of your position'.
DE>I think everyone has different ideas of who is a Hall of Famer and I hope I
DE>made some sence with this post on what I think.
Russ Craft
David J. Craven
In article <19980311234...@ladder02.news.aol.com> despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
>Path: news.enteract.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news2.chicago.iagnet.net!qual.net!iagnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>I'm really confused?? I keep hearing battling average isn't important. Ok then
>I guess Dave Kingman should be in the Hall of Fame with his 440 Homeruns and
>everyone should just ignore his average of .238.
>If Kingman had a better average he would be in the Hall of Fame. So batting
>average does limit one from being in the Hall of Fame.
Kingman is not in the HOF for a number of reasons.... Most importantly, he did
NOT play a "skill" position (that is to say a position where defense was at a
premium.). He did one thing well... he could hit home runs (well he also
could produce a lot of outs) That's it. Its not JUST has batting average
that should keep him out of the HOF. If Kingman had been, say a superb
defensive Catcher, Second Basemen or Shortstop, yes he would be in the Hall of
Fame.... but not as an OF/1B.
David J. Craven
> I love this thread, and Mr. Despondent. I haven't seen such a good
>old-fashioned batting-average-obsessive since...well, since me writing about
>Tony Gwynn a year and a half ago. (I was younger and dumber.)
> Since I can't add anything to the discussion, I'll just say this: we can
>agree (most of us, anyway) that Ripken is a deserving HOF-er, but would he be a
>sure thing if it wasn't for the streak?
Yes. He has a number of "best of class" stats as a shortstop. (Most HR, I
believe most doubles, most straight AS apperances, 2 MVP's, Gold Gloves, and
so on - mostly stats which don't mean much, but the kind that impress the BWAA.
David J. Craven
>> I've got an idea for Mr. Desponded1. Let him pick an all-time team,
>>using Hall of Famers at each position except shortstop. We pick an
>>all-time team using non-Hall members, and we get to pick Desponded1's
>>shortstop. If the two teams played a hundred games, what would the
>>results be?
>Ok, I'm curious. His team would win, probably fairly easily. I'm not sure who'd
>he pick, but more than likely, he'll select a very good team. And we don't get
>any Hall of Famers. We can pick a pretty good team, but I doubt it would
>compete with his team.
I think that it would compete very very well... he would have essentially no
one behind the plate or at ss or secondbase... and his pitcher would be Nolan
Ryan....
Michael David Jones
js...@aol.com (Jstu9) writes:
>> I've got an idea for Mr. Desponded1. Let him pick an all-time team,
>>using Hall of Famers at each position except shortstop. We pick an
>>all-time team using non-Hall members, and we get to pick Desponded1's
>>shortstop. If the two teams played a hundred games, what would the
>>results be?
>Ok, I'm curious. His team would win, probably fairly easily. I'm not sure who'd
>he pick, but more than likely, he'll select a very good team. And we don't get
>any Hall of Famers. We can pick a pretty good team, but I doubt it would
>compete with his team.
Really? Considering that our infield would look something like
C Thurman Munson
1B Dick Allen
2B Bobby Grich
SS Rico Petrocelli? (There must be a better pick here)
3B Ron Santo
I think we'd have a pretty good chance against somebody who thinks
Ripken doesn't deserve to be in becuse of his *batting average*.
Michael David Jones
>> Actually, this proves the point that a SS does not need to hit like a 1B to be
>> a starter. A 1B who hits like Bordick wouldn't even make it to AA. But since
>> Bordick is deemed to have some defensive value, he plays.
>> This is just to point out the defensive importance of the SS position. And why
>> a SS who can hit like Ripken is far superior to a 1B with identical numbers.
>behind Ozzie as the best fielding SS I ever saw, and I go back to Roy
>McMillan, Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese.
You know, it's just amazing how often things "everybody knows" are
wrong. The conventional wisdom is that Belanger couldn't hit. In fact,
in the years the Orioles were winning, he hit adequately. As soon as
he really couldn't "hit a lick", two things happened: the Orioles quit
winning, and Weaver quit playing him.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Everything else in our lives comes and goes. Baseball endures.
- Lee Eisenberg
David J. Craven
In article <19980312125...@ladder01.news.aol.com> despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
>I keep hearing about Ripken's defensive skills as being among the best ever is
>this really true? I mean if he was one of the best at that position why is at
>third base now? I think the newsgroups would be full of responses about how
>wrong it is that Ripken isn't at short for the O's
Actually the O's group is full of this...
>I have seen him play and I think of the words "steady" and "consistent" and not
>the words "best ever" as far as defensively goes. He was above average and not
>close to best ever.
>Honesty could he get to balls that were hit that only the best ever shortstops
>could reach and throw out a runner?
If you look at his statistics, the answer pretty much is yes. Because of arm
strength he played further back and therefore made the plays that a diving SS
would make in a less spectacular fashion. I believe that he is third on the
list of SS in terms of defensive runs for a period of the last 15 years. The
key is not to make the sportscenter highlight reels... rather it is to turn
hit balls into outs... something that Ripken was very very very good at....
one of the best ever.
>I like to hear what you think about his defensive skills. How do you rank him
>compared to best shortstops of today? Is his defensive skills that much better
>than the than above-average shortstops of today? How does he compare to the
>best evers like Ozzie Smith ? I think the most important but not only ability a
>shortstop needs is the ability to reach hit balls. Did Ripken have the range as
>other greats had?I think he did very good with those balls he could get to and
>he didn't commit alot of errors.
I'll let someone with the numbers at their fingertips answer, but as I recall,
the difference between Ozzie and Cal is about 15 singles per year. This is
more than made up at the plate...
>I look at Ripken and see an above average hitter at best and an above average
>defensive shortstop. The word great isn't there.Does Ripken have the same kind
>of "legend" image that only other Great players had? I think just because he
>played shortstop and hit the most homeruns at that position doesn't make him
>great. Homeruns are going out of parks like crazy and Ripkens is maybe only
>reach 400 in his career.Is 400 homeruns alot of Homeruns for a guy who will end
>up playing 3000 games in his career?
ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WE KEEP ASKING. NAME TWO AMERICAN LEAGUE SS (in the
entire history of the AL) WHO ARE BETTER THAN (or even equal to) CAL. (HINT:
Honus Wagner played in the NL...)
>I think everyone has different ideas of who is a Hall of Famer and I hope I
>made some sence with this post on what I think.
No. A Hall of Fame which excludes Cal Ripken results in a VERY VERY small
Hall of Fame, not much more than one player a decade....
kfe...@pegasus.rutgers.edu
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980312...@blaze.accessone.com>,
Ivan Weiss <iv...@blaze.accessone.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Ahem! I believe you forgot the Most Exhalted One.
> > > Honus Wagner was pretty good at everything too. As well
> > >as Speaker and Lajoie. What is it that you think these players
> > >weren't above average at?
> >
> > Hitting home runs. (Remember, Mr. Desponded refuses to look at relative
> > production. It's the absolute rank on these various lists that he keeps
> > citing.)
>
> Honus Wagner is one of only four players in history ever to lead the
> league in stolen bases and slugging percentage in the same season. He did
> it four times (!) So did Cobb. Willie Mays did it once. Can anyone name
> the fourth player?
>
league in slugging in his MVP year (1990), and I know he stole 65 bases, which
may or may not have led the league.
> Ivan Weiss Love: Temporary insanity, curable by marriage.
> Vashon WA Ambrose Bierce -- "The Devil's Dictionary"
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michael David Jones
Ivan Weiss <iv...@blaze.accessone.com> writes:
>I'll have a crack at that one. These are players I saw in person (since
>1953). Let's look at peak value here. None of these guys are in the Hall.
This is a really interesting outgrowth of this thread. What is the
best team you can put together of players who aren't in the Hall.
>1B: Ted Kluszewski, Keith Hernandez, Orlando Cepeda
>2B: (who else) Bill Mazeroski
Bobby Grich
>SS: Dave Concepcion, Mark Belanger
Rico Petrocelli?
>3B: Dick Allen, Ron Santo
I'd start Santo at third and let Klu duke it out with Allen and Darrell
Evans at first.
>LF: Minnie Minoso, Jimmy Wynn
>CF: Fred Lynn
>RF: Rocky Colavito, Carl Furillo
>C: Thurman Munson, Ted Simmons
Gary Carter, unless we're also going to omit players still eligible.
>SP: JR Richard, Bob Veale, Ron Guidry, Vida Blue
Jim Lonborg.
>RP: Dick Radatz
>At their peak IMO, all these players had HOF ability. Most of them weren't
>at peak ability long enough to get in. At the time they played, they were
>considered dominating-type players in one department or another. Ask
>anyone who had to hit against Bob Veale, for instance. I saw him pitch,
>and trust me, he was as scary as Randy Johnson is today.
>This is just off the top. Anyone else want to try? I'd go back to the
>1930s or something, but these are players I saw.
>Ivan Weiss Love: Temporary insanity, curable by marriage.
Jstu9
>>Ok, I'm curious. His team would win, probably fairly easily. I'm not sure
>>who'd he pick, but more than likely, he'll select a very good team. And we
don't
>>get any Hall of Famers. We can pick a pretty good team, but I doubt it would
>>compete with his team.
>
>Really? Considering that our infield would look something like
>C Thurman Munson
And his would include Bench or Berra more than likely.
>1B Dick Allen
Lou Gehrig.
>2B Bobby Grich
Not sure who he would take here. Probably Hornsby.
>SS Rico Petrocelli? (There must be a better pick here)
And he can take Wagner.
>3B Ron Santo
I don't know if he likes Schmidt (maybe with the HR's) but maybe Eddie Mathews
but since he hit .271, maybe not.
>I think we'd have a pretty good chance against somebody who thinks
>Ripken doesn't deserve to be in becuse of his *batting average*.
Ok.
But, he will almsot force himself to pick players who are better than ours.
Even if you *only* look at BA and HR's, he is still bound to pick very good
players at most positions. Ruth. Williams. Mays. Wagner. Schmidt. Bench.
Hornsby. Gehrig. He might overlook some of these, but all of them? And if he
misses one of these, then maybe he takes Cobb or Musial or DiMaggio or Morgan
or McCovey or Banks or Mathews or Berra.
He could probably randomly pick a team solely from Hall of Famers and beat our
team of Non-Hall of Famers, unless bad luck occurs and he gets *all* of the
mistakes.
jls
Desponded1
Ok here is a question about putting the "best Position player with above
average numbers" than putting in just the best all-time.
I keep hearing Ripken is the best hitting shortstop. Why is defensive postion
meantion with hitting? Does he bring his glove to the plate to hit? It seems
Ripken doesn't rank near the top in any category offensively all-time and
saying he is suppose to be hitting numbers lower than other positions just
because he is a shortstop doesn't make sense to me?? I mean the Hall of Fame is
for the "greats" of the game, right?
Should players in certain positions like shortstop be placed in the Hall of
Fame with lower numbers than the best all-time ? Is this a reasonable thing to
do? Is playing shortstop that demanding that it makes one offensive numbers
drop that much?
David Grabiner
chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg) writes:
> In article <ybgien08...@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>,
> David Grabiner <grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
> >despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
> >If you restrict the Hall of Fame to players who were above average in
> >every category, you'll have just two members: Willie Mays and George
> >Grantham. (Grantham played second base in the NL in the 1920's, and was
> >decent at everything but excelled in nothing.)
> Ahem! I believe you forgot the Most Exhalted One.
> Honus Wagner was pretty good at everything too. As well
> as Speaker and Lajoie. What is it that you think these players
> weren't above average at?
My source was a Bill James study. He looked at everyone who had played
at least a thousand games, and took the averages of the group in rates
of production of nine offensive categories and in defensive position.
Only two players were above the group average in all nine categories and
also played an above-average defensive position (centerfield, second,
shortstop, or catcher).
This appeared in the Ryne Sandberg comment in the 1988 Baseball
Abstract; Sandberg had a chance to be the third player above average in
every category.
I don't have the data, but I would guess Wagner is below the average in
homers and walks, Cobb in homers and possibly RBI, and Speaker in
homers.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
David J. Craven
>I keep hearing Ripken is the best hitting shortstop. Why is defensive postion
>meantion with hitting?
Because Baseball is a game of both offense and defense. It is not the
Baseball HITTING AND PITCHING Hall of Fame, it is the baseball Hall of Fame.
> Does he bring his glove to the plate to hit? It seems
>Ripken doesn't rank near the top in any category offensively all-time and
Does anyone have the career stats on doubles? As I recall Cal is pretty high
on that list (and he is in the top 40 in Home Runs....... and may be
able to move up another few notches before he retires...
>>saying he is suppose to be hitting numbers lower than other positions just
>because he is a shortstop doesn't make sense to me??
Uh... if someone with the ability to hit "higher numbers" could field the
position, don't you think that someone would have put them there? First
and the OF are MUCH easier to play defensively. Again, I repeat the
Challenge, this time in caps since you keep ignore it..
NAME ONE, THATS RIGHT ONE!, SHORTSTOP IN THE HISTORY OF THE AL THAT YOU
WOULD TAKE OVER RIPKEN.
>Should players in certain positions like shortstop be placed in the Hall of
>Fame with lower numbers than the best all-time ? Is this a reasonable thing to
>do? Is playing shortstop that demanding that it makes one offensive numbers
>drop that much?
It appears to be. Otherwise I would assume that you could NAME ONE AL SS.
Frankly, I don't see how you can justify a Hall of Fame consisting almost
solely of first basemen and Outfielders....
Tell you what... come up with the best nine offensive players of all time,
(and they have to all have better offensive stats than Ripken...) give us
this team, we will come up with a list of non-HOF'ers and I am sure that
someone will run it through a baseball simulator and give us a result.... The
only reason that your team will have a chance is that you will let Ruth pitch
(he does qualify for your Hall of Fame... doesn't he).
David Grabiner
"Jaime J. Weinman" <beavers...@hotmail.com> writes:
> And still one more thing: Ripken has been a great offensive and defensive
> player, but "Total Baseball's" rating of him for his 1984 season--9.0!--is
> perhaps the weirdest rating in the whole book. He was superb that year,
> but...well, it's one of those cases where certain statistical biases work
> together, I guess.
This is part of the problem with Fielding Runs. The batting order means
that batters have a consistent number of opportunities from season to
season; if a player hits .300 consistently, he will also consistently
get 180-200 hits as a regular. Fielding opportunities aren't constant;
the Orioles probably had a lot more ground balls to short in 1984 than
in 1983 or 1985 just by chance, and this allowed Ripken to set the
record for assists.
That's really the only oddity in his 1984 record. He hit just as well
in 1984 as in his 1983 MVP season, but nobody noticed because the
Orioles won the World Series in 1983 and never were in the race in 1984.
(Also, it looks superficially like he declined a bit; he lost 14 points
of batting average, but made this up by drawing 13 more walks to
increase his OBP by two points, and lost only seven points of SLG.)
John Clay Davenport
In article <19980311234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Desponded1 <despo...@aol.com> wrote:
>.>It doesn't...but HOF qualifications don't start with, and aren't limited to,
>>batting average.
>
>I'm really confused?? I keep hearing battling average isn't important. Ok then
>I guess Dave Kingman should be in the Hall of Fame with his 440 Homeruns and
>everyone should just ignore his average of .238.
No, you have to look at *the whole thing*.
Don't look at just his batting average; that is foolish.
Don't look at just home runs; that is foolish.
Don't look at just his defense; that is foolish.
Teams win they score more runs than the other team. Players who do the most to
score runs for their team and deny runs to the other are the best players.
How do you score runs? Don't make outs (which is NOT measured by batting
average, but by onbase average). Hit for power. You prevent runs by playing
defense well, but at some positions in particular: pitcher, shortstop, second
base, catcher, center field, third base, right field, left field, first base,
in roughly that order. An average shortstop is probably worth more,
defensively, than a good left fielder.
And you'll find a lot of people here use something called "OPS" instead of
batting average. Take a player's onbase average. Add his slugging average.
Ta-da. I use something called Equivalent Average which is a little more
complicated and a little more accurate, but agrees pretty well with OPS.
Try this: look at a season, any season. Rank the teams by runs scored - that's
what you're supposed to do on offense, right? Score? (If you even hesitate
here, think about one game; do you want to have more runs than the other team
or more hits?) Now rank the teams by batting average. Now rank them by OPS.
I'll make a bet with you that OPS rank matches the run rank a lot better.
Here, I'll show you the 1997 AL.
First in runs: Seattle. 4th in batting average (3 off), 1st in OPS (0 off).
Second New York. 2nd (0) and 4th (2).
Third Cleveland 3rd (0) and 2nd (2)
4 Boston 1st (3) and 3rd (1)
5 Anaheim 7th (2) and 8th (3)
6 Baltimore 9th (3) and 6th (0)
7 Texas 5th (2) and 5th (2)
8 Detroit 13th (5) and 10th (3)
9 Chicago 6th (3) and 9th (0)
10 Minnesota 8th (2) and 11th (1)
11 Oakland 12th (1) and 7th (4)
12 K.C. 10th (2) and 12th (0)
13 Milwaukee 11th(2) and 13th (0)
14 Toronto 14th (0) and 14th (0)
Total error points for batting average: 28.
Total for OPS 16.
That's why people say that ranking players by OPS is better than ranking them
by BA.
Don't forget that there were times, like the 1920s, when the league average,
as a whole, was unusually high, or other times like the 1960s when they were
unusually low. Individuals from those times have an advantage or disadvantage
that has nothing to do with their own abilities.
Don't forget that some parks, notably Colorado, and Fenway, and Wrigley, are
"easy" to hit in, and others, like the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium, are hard,
and that makes players on those team slook better or worse.
>If Kingman had a better average he would be in the Hall of Fame. So batting
>average does limit one from being in the Hall of Fame.
>
If he had a better average - and still had his power - than he'd be a better
hitter and more deserving of the Hall of Fame. (Of course, if he did that he
wouldn't be Dave Kingman.)
If Tony Gwynn hit for more power, he'd be a better hitter and more deserving
of the Hall. (He deserves to be in anyway, IMO, its just that he'd be even
better if his hits weren't all singles.)
If a player hits for a better average than Kingman (but not as good as
Gwynn), and has more power than Gwynn (but not as much as Kingman), he still
might be better than either of them as a hitter and deserve to be in the Hall.
Especially if he plays a key defensive position - like shortstop. Especially
if he plays it well.
Like Ripken. Not the Ripken of the 1990s, mind you; except for 1991, that
guy's no Hall of Famer. Look at him in the mid-80s; that's where he earned his
place.
--
Clay Davenport cdave...@nesdis.noaa.com Meteorologist
NESDIS/NOAA, 5200 Auth Rd Rm 601, Camp Springs, MD 20746
Phone 301-763-8251 x36
Author, Baseball Prospectus 1998 www.baseballprospectus.com
Michael J. Sacks
On 12 Mar 1998, Desponded1 wrote:
> Ok here is a question about putting the "best Position player with above
> average numbers" than putting in just the best all-time.
> I keep hearing Ripken is the best hitting shortstop. Why is defensive postion
> meantion with hitting? Does he bring his glove to the plate to hit? It seems
> Ripken doesn't rank near the top in any category offensively all-time and
> saying he is suppose to be hitting numbers lower than other positions just
> because he is a shortstop doesn't make sense to me?? I mean the Hall of Fame is
> for the "greats" of the game, right?
To field a baseball team, you need 8 position players. If you don't have
a SS, your team will not do good. If a player hits like Ripken and plays
first base, then he'd be considered very good, but not a lock for the HOF.
If he played catcher, he'd be one of the top HOF of all time.
You seem to think hitting and position are exclusive. They're not. You'd
think a player who hits .300+ every season, hits around a .800 OPS every
season, hits around 10 HR, 40 2B, and was the top defensive player at his
position would be considered one of the top players in the game.
Mark Grace isn't though. If he played SS, he would be. It's a question of
replacement value.
The question for the HOF isn't what the player did compared to the top 2
or 3 of all time, it's a question of what they did to place themselves
ahead of everyone else. Cal Ripken, because he plays shortstop and hits
the way he does, because he fields great in a tough defensive position,
and has played every day for so many years, is a lock.
> Should players in certain positions like shortstop be placed in the Hall of
> Fame with lower numbers than the best all-time ? Is this a reasonable thing to
> do? Is playing shortstop that demanding that it makes one offensive numbers
> drop that much?
Yes, yes, and sort of. It's not a question that playing shortstop reduces
your offensive skill. It's that most top offensive players are not
well-rounded enough to play tougher defensive positions. It's not a
coincidence that there are many weak hitting SS and 2B (and catchers).
Their defensive value is more important than at other positions due to the
number of fielding plays they have to make in a game. Therefore, when you
have a player that is one of the better defensive players at a tough
position AND the top hitter there of all-time (outside of Wagner and
Banks), then he's a HOFer.
Mike Sacks
Michael David Jones
despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
>Ok here is a question about putting the "best Position player with above
>average numbers" than putting in just the best all-time.
>I keep hearing Ripken is the best hitting shortstop. Why is defensive postion
>meantion with hitting? Does he bring his glove to the plate to hit? It seems
>Ripken doesn't rank near the top in any category offensively all-time and
>saying he is suppose to be hitting numbers lower than other positions just
>because he is a shortstop doesn't make sense to me?? I mean the Hall of Fame is
>for the "greats" of the game, right?
Basic economics. It's a question of scarcity.
1. Every team has to have a shortstop.
2. The number of players who can provide acceptable (or better)
defense at shortstop is smaller than at many other positions (1B, 3B,
anywhere in the OF, probably 2B).
Therefore,
3. The value of a particular level of hitting performance is *more
valuable* if the player can also play shortstop.
>Should players in certain positions like shortstop be placed in the Hall of
>Fame with lower numbers than the best all-time ? Is this a reasonable thing to
>do? Is playing shortstop that demanding that it makes one offensive numbers
>drop that much?
Yes, yes, and no. It's not that offensive numbers drop, it's that Babe
Ruth and Ted Williams couldn't play shortstop with acceptable
defensive performance. Neither could Frank Thomas or Tony Gwynn.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
It's almost like the whole burden of Vietnam has been lifted off
everyone's shoulders. Americans have pride again.
- Clayton Yeutter, 23 January 1991, to the Lincoln, NE Rotary Club
Sean Lahman
David J. Craven wrote:
>
>despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) writes:
>
> >Ripken doesn't rank near the top in any category offensively
> >all-time and
>
> pretty high on that list (and he is in the top 40 in Home Runs.......
> and may be able to move up another few notches before he retires...
Ripken is 29th all-time in doubles with 517. If he hits 25 more, he'd
move up to 16th. He'd need 606 to break the top-ten, which seems
possible. That's probably as high as he could go.
Ripken's 370 HR is currently tied for 41st (with Gil Hodges). Bonds and
McGwire are the only active players ahead of him, and they probably will
always remain ahead of Ripken.
20 more HRs would move him to 30th (assuming McGwire and Bonds stay
ahead of him)
40 more HRs moves him to about 27th
75 more HRs moves him to about 23rd
100 more HRs movs him to about 21st
and the road gets considerably steeper from there.
The Brock5 tool, which is available from my website, projects that
Ripken will end up with 429 HRs (25th after Bonds and McGwire pass him)
and 643 doubles (8th). Brock projects that Ripken will start for three
more years.
--
Sean Lahman / se...@baseball1.com
The Baseball Archive - http://www.baseball1.com
James Weisberg
In article <ybgiogzb...@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>,
I still don't see how this makes much sense. For one, why
would you limit yourself to *just* considering homers? As long
as the guy hits for power, so what? Wagner and Cobb, for
example, certainly hit for power. Secondly, factoring in the
deadball era, these guys *DID* hit above average in home runs!
When you consider that average was probably about 2-3 per season,
it's not too hard to figure that they were above average.
I have no idea why you would say Cobb is not above average
in RBIs. He led the league 4 times and was 2nd or 3rd a few
times as well. I still challenge this assertion that Mays and
George Grantham were the only players above average in
everything.
How about we jump out of the deadball era? What is
Jackie Robinson below average in? What is Frank Robinson
below average in? What is Rickey Henderson below average in?
I'm just not seeing this. Average was not that good.
--
Tom Austin
Jstu9 wrote:
>
> >>Ok, I'm curious. His team would win, probably fairly easily. I'm not sure
> >>who'd he pick, but more than likely, he'll select a very good team. And we
> don't
> >>get any Hall of Famers. We can pick a pretty good team, but I doubt it would
> >>compete with his team.
> >
>
> >SS Rico Petrocelli? (There must be a better pick here)
>
> And he can take Wagner.
no, this was the caveat: WE get to pick his shortstop, and it doesn't
have to be HOF (that's how I read it, anyway). So we pick Ozzie Guillen
for him and find out if the difference between Guillen and (until thiw
week, George Davis) or Cal Ripken (we can pick Ripken, right?) is great
enough to make up for what we're giving away at every other position.
I don't think it would be, but I see the point of the original
challenge.
James Weisberg
In article <Please.68...@No.spam.to.tradelaw.com>,
David J. Craven <Ple...@No.spam.to.tradelaw.com> wrote:
>NAME ONE, THATS RIGHT ONE!, SHORTSTOP IN THE HISTORY OF THE AL THAT YOU
>WOULD TAKE OVER RIPKEN.
Does someone want to defend Ripken over George Davis for me?
I see no particular reason why Davis isn't just as good, if not
better, than Cal Ripken. Now he played most of his career in the
NL, but he did play a significant chunk of time in the AL as well.
Sean Lahman
James Weisberg wrote:
>
> David J. Craven <Ple...@No.spam.to.tradelaw.com> wrote:
> >NAME ONE, THATS RIGHT ONE!, SHORTSTOP IN THE HISTORY OF THE AL THAT
> >YOU WOULD TAKE OVER RIPKEN.
>
> Does someone want to defend Ripken over George Davis for me?
> I see no particular reason why Davis isn't just as good, if not
> better, than Cal Ripken. Now he played most of his career in the
> NL, but he did play a significant chunk of time in the AL as well.
Seven years, all of which were past-prime. I consider Davis a National
Leaguer. His AL play was unspectacular.
But Davis is a strong #2 overall at SS. Ripken's close, but clearly
behind Davis. If I had to rank them, it'd be Wagner, Davis, Vaughn,
Banks, Ripken. And if Ripken can start for three more years, I'd
consider moving him ahead of Banks.
Chris Dial
Textus wrote in message <19980312161...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Gwynn I guess goes in. Does Boggs?
Gak. Wade Boggs? Career OPS: 867 Gwynn: 845 and Gwynn has busted ass the
last four seasons to get that close. And Boggs is a 3Bman (compare his OPS
to them) while Gwynn is a RF compare OPS to them...)
Of course Wade Boggs is a Hall of Famer...
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
Jstu9 wrote in message <19980312184...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>Ok, I'm curious. His team would win, probably fairly easily. I'm not sure
>>>who'd he pick, but more than likely, he'll select a very good team. And
we
>don't
>>>get any Hall of Famers. We can pick a pretty good team, but I doubt it
would
>>>compete with his team.
>>
>>C Thurman Munson
>
>And his would include Bench or Berra more than likely.
>
>>1B Dick Allen
>
>Lou Gehrig.
>
>>2B Bobby Grich
>
>Not sure who he would take here. Probably Hornsby.
>
>
>And he can take Wagner.
>
>
>I don't know if he likes Schmidt (maybe with the HR's) but maybe Eddie
Mathews
>but since he hit .271, maybe not.
>
>>I think we'd have a pretty good chance against somebody who thinks
>>Ripken doesn't deserve to be in becuse of his *batting average*.
>
>Ok.
>
>But, he will almsot force himself to pick players who are better than ours.
>Even if you *only* look at BA and HR's, he is still bound to pick very good
>players at most positions. Ruth. Williams. Mays. Wagner. Schmidt. Bench.
>Hornsby. Gehrig. He might overlook some of these, but all of them? And if
he
>misses one of these, then maybe he takes Cobb or Musial or DiMaggio or
Morgan
>or McCovey or Banks or Mathews or Berra.
>
>He could probably randomly pick a team solely from Hall of Famers and beat
our
>team of Non-Hall of Famers, unless bad luck occurs and he gets *all* of the
>mistakes.
He couldn't miss Ruth or Aaron or Mays. He could play Mantle at SS... The
errors made by Mantle wouldn't be a blip considering how he'd outperform
Ripken at the plate...
The All-HOF team would murder the near-HoF team, and we didn't even look at
the pitchers...
CDial
David J. Craven
In article <6e9l16$78m$1...@usenet49.supernews.com> "Chris Dial" <acdial<nospam>@intrex.net> writes:
>>I don't know if he likes Schmidt (maybe with the HR's) but maybe Eddie
>Mathews
>>but since he hit .271, maybe not.
>>
Not eligble for his team... BA under .271. That is his primary beef against
Cal....
>He couldn't miss Ruth or Aaron or Mays. He could play Mantle at SS... The
>errors made by Mantle wouldn't be a blip considering how he'd outperform
>Ripken at the plate...
Can't have Mantle..... too many strikeouts.... remember.... for everyone he
picks has to be better than Cal in the flashy (ie non-meaningful) numbers,
which I would take to be BA, Hits, Strikeouts, RBI, Walks and Home Runs....
Heck on Home Runs alone, he is down to less than 40 players...
And then we have to exclude a number of people with BA less than .275.. and as
you see the team rapidly declines to one of Ruth, Gerhig, Williams, and
Cobb....
(Oh wait... we even lose Cobb... not enough Home Runs... because clearly we
don't adjust for the Dead Ball era... thats too statheadish...)
But of course, he problem won't put up a list... no guts..
Michael Wolverton
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98031...@jove.acs.unt.edu>,
Fore Steven James <sjf...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>On 11 Mar 1998, Desponded1 wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> You say Ryan is only in becasue his longevity but that is my point! He
>> dominated for a long time isn't that the whole point?
>
>No. The point is that he DIDN'T "dominate"; was there ever a season in
>which he was the best pitcher in the league, much less baseball? Or even
>close?
David Grabiner beat me to the answer for this: Ryan was league-best in
3 seasons, according to Total Baseball's Adjusted Pitching Runs.
1977, 1981, and 1987.
How many of Ryan's contemporaries equalled this total? Hint: not
Carlton (2 seasons), not Palmer (1), not Gibson (1), not Perry (2),
not Niekro (2), not Blyleven (1), not Saberhagen (1), not Jenkins,
Sutton, Hunter, John, Cone, or Morris (never in all cases).
The answer is that only three (or four, depending on who you count) of
Ryan's contemporaries had as many league-leading seasons. (And, given
the length of Ryan's career, we're talking about a lot of
contemporaries.) Clemens has done it six times now. Maddux has done
it four times, if you count him as Ryan's contemporary. Seaver
equalled Ryan's total of three seasons. I'll leave the last, who was
league-best in four seasons during Ryan's career, as a (fairly easy)
exercise.
-Michael
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton "Is that clear?"
m...@cs.stanford.edu "No, but it's consistent!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Flieger
David J. Craven wrote in message ...
>
>NAME ONE, THATS RIGHT ONE!, SHORTSTOP IN THE HISTORY OF THE AL THAT
YOU
>WOULD TAKE OVER RIPKEN.
George Davis and Lou Boudreau are defensible choices. I wouldn't take
either, but...
Crafruso
DE>Ok here is a question about putting the "best Position player with above
DE>average numbers" than putting in just the best all-time.
DE>I keep hearing Ripken is the best hitting shortstop. Why is defensive postio
DE>meantion with hitting? Does he bring his glove to the plate to hit? It seems
DE>Ripken doesn't rank near the top in any category offensively all-time and
DE>saying he is suppose to be hitting numbers lower than other positions just
DE>because he is a shortstop doesn't make sense to me?? I mean the Hall of Fame
DE>for the "greats" of the game, right?
DE>Should players in certain positions like shortstop be placed in the Hall of
DE>Fame with lower numbers than the best all-time ? Is this a reasonable thing
DE>do? Is playing shortstop that demanding that it makes one offensive numbers
DE>drop that much?
Yes, yes, and yes
Russ Craft
--
This message comes from NaSCOM, the official internet server of NaSPA, THE
Network and System Professionals Assocation, with over 40,000 members in 72
countries. Contact http://www.naspa.net for free trial membership or
X116 or fax (414) 768-8001 or (414) 768-8000 x116 voice.
Dan Szymborski
In article <35084F...@optilink.dsccc.com>, Tom Austin
says...
>
> no, this was the caveat: WE get to pick his shortstop, and it doesn't
> have to be HOF (that's how I read it, anyway). So we pick Ozzie Guillen
> for him and find out if the difference between Guillen and (until thiw
> week, George Davis) or Cal Ripken (we can pick Ripken, right?) is great
> enough to make up for what we're giving away at every other position.
We're going to pick Ray Oyler for him. No substitutions.
He's gonna have to stick in Ray Oyler for 162 games.
--
Dan Szymborski-Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
"...in the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk
all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what
that means. Talent makes winnners, not intangibles.
Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win -- if they're
nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little
talent finish fourth, and nice guys with no talent finish
last."
---Sandy Koufax
Crafruso
CZ>In article <35084F...@optilink.dsccc.com>, Tom Austin
CZ>says...
CZ>>
CZ>> no, this was the caveat: WE get to pick his shortstop, and it doesn't
CZ>> have to be HOF (that's how I read it, anyway). So we pick Ozzie Guillen
CZ>> for him and find out if the difference between Guillen and (until thiw
CZ>> week, George Davis) or Cal Ripken (we can pick Ripken, right?) is great
CZ>> enough to make up for what we're giving away at every other position.
CZ>We're going to pick Ray Oyler for him. No substitutions.
CZ>He's gonna have to stick in Ray Oyler for 162 games.
CZ>--
CZ>Dan Szymborski-Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
CZ> "...in the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk
CZ> all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what
CZ> that means. Talent makes winnners, not intangibles.
CZ> Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win -- if they're
CZ> nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little
CZ> talent finish fourth, and nice guys with no talent finish
CZ> last."
CZ> ---Sandy Koufax
CZ>http://www.baseballstuff.com
Oyler's not a bad choice but I was hoping for Dal Maxville - or if we
can use active players, Manny Alexander
DougP001
In article <889741...@NaSPA.Net>, craf...@NaSPA.Net (Crafruso) writes:
>
>Oyler's not a bad choice but I was hoping for Dal Maxville - or if we
>can use active players, Manny Alexander
What about that all-time Clutch Performer, Rafael "Most Successive
Years in the Postseason" Belliard?
Doug Pappas