And yet people like you talk about how some guys (for example Maranville and Mazeroski) shouldn't be in the hall - don't you trust the people who covered them and voted them in?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I disagree. In 1905 or 1960 or whenever, a lot of people who covered game thought things like pitcher wins and saves and RBI (for hitters) were important stats. They voted for awards based on those "important" stats.

Instead of relying on the poor judgement (maybe through no fault of their own) of those writers, we should evaluate what actually happened on the field.

The game was played very differently back then. You can't just look at 1905 stats with your modern day understanding (and bias) while ignoring the context in which those stats were achieved.

"Boy, those 1905 players must have all been ****** hitters because they sure bunted a lot".

I didn't say anything about bunting.

There's a difference between knowing that the game has changed over time and claiming that the best way to evaluate players in past decades is by counting "top 8 CYA finishes."

Posted by Jtpsops on 1/18/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
And yet people like you talk about how some guys (for example Maranville and Mazeroski) shouldn't be in the hall - don't you trust the people who covered them and voted them in?

I've never commented on Maranville.

Mazeroski was elected by the Veteran's Committee, not by the BBWAA. The VC has traditionally been fraught with cronyism in electing non-deserving players.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I disagree. In 1905 or 1960 or whenever, a lot of people who covered game thought things like pitcher wins and saves and RBI (for hitters) were important stats. They voted for awards based on those "important" stats.

Instead of relying on the poor judgement (maybe through no fault of their own) of those writers, we should evaluate what actually happened on the field.

The game was played very differently back then. You can't just look at 1905 stats with your modern day understanding (and bias) while ignoring the context in which those stats were achieved.

"Boy, those 1905 players must have all been ****** hitters because they sure bunted a lot".

I didn't say anything about bunting.

There's a difference between knowing that the game has changed over time and claiming that the best way to evaluate players in past decades is by counting "top 8 CYA finishes."

C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

CYA and MVP voting indicates how players were perceived at the time that they played by the people who watched them play, by the experts of the day. Not through the lens of time by people who never saw them play.

You have to watch the games. Or trust the judgements of the people who did.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have the stats" is a poor philosophy.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I disagree. In 1905 or 1960 or whenever, a lot of people who covered game thought things like pitcher wins and saves and RBI (for hitters) were important stats. They voted for awards based on those "important" stats.

Instead of relying on the poor judgement (maybe through no fault of their own) of those writers, we should evaluate what actually happened on the field.

The game was played very differently back then. You can't just look at 1905 stats with your modern day understanding (and bias) while ignoring the context in which those stats were achieved.

"Boy, those 1905 players must have all been ****** hitters because they sure bunted a lot".

I didn't say anything about bunting.

There's a difference between knowing that the game has changed over time and claiming that the best way to evaluate players in past decades is by counting "top 8 CYA finishes."

C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

CYA and MVP voting indicates how players were perceived at the time that they played by the people who watched them play, by the experts of the day. Not through the lens of time by people who never saw them play.

You have to watch the games. Or trust the judgements of the people who did.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have the stats" is a poor philosophy.

What C-O-N-T-E-X-T is provided by knowing that Gossage finished top 6 in CYA voting 5 times that isn't apparent through his actual stats?

Using any sportswriters' opinion of greatness is a shaky proposition at best. That's why stuff like the CYA and MVP and even ROY is pretty tenuous reasoning. Jeff Kent won an MVP when he wasn't the best player on his own team. Juan Marichal never won a CYA despite being the best pitcher in the 60's (some say because he bashed Roseboro). Now we have an activist splinter group in the BBWAA that is fixated on keeping Bonds/Clemens out, but is oddly voting in guys like Bagwell and Piazza because "they're not sure" about them.

Writers in general are swayed by personal biases, not even related to on-field performance.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 1/18/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
And yet people like you talk about how some guys (for example Maranville and Mazeroski) shouldn't be in the hall - don't you trust the people who covered them and voted them in?

I've never commented on Maranville.

Mazeroski was elected by the Veteran's Committee, not by the BBWAA. The VC has traditionally been fraught with cronyism in electing non-deserving players.

I just pulled them as random examples. I don't care about the specific player - the point is people in your camp are always saying certain guys shouldn't be in, which contradicts your "we should trust their reputation among those who covered them" argument.

But clearly you're no stranger to contradicting yourself.

Posted by Jtpsops on 1/18/2017 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 1/18/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
And yet people like you talk about how some guys (for example Maranville and Mazeroski) shouldn't be in the hall - don't you trust the people who covered them and voted them in?

I've never commented on Maranville.

Mazeroski was elected by the Veteran's Committee, not by the BBWAA. The VC has traditionally been fraught with cronyism in electing non-deserving players.

I just pulled them as random examples. I don't care about the specific player - the point is people in your camp are always saying certain guys shouldn't be in, which contradicts your "we should trust their reputation among those who covered them" argument.

But clearly you're no stranger to contradicting yourself.

Still don't know WTF you're referring to. I don't think you do, either. I think you're just arguing for the sake of argument, like your buddy PSBL often does.

By and large, I think the BBWAA (i.e., "those who covered them") has done a fine job. There have been a few exceptions in recent years (Rice, Dawson, and Blyleven for example), but for the most part I've agreed with their choices on who gets in and who doesn't.

Most of the people in the HOF who don't belong in the HOF are the players who were selected by the various VC's over the years.

So Rice, Dawson and Blyleven shouldn't be in by your standards - but we should trust the writers that covered them, right? Surely they know more than you and me about what makes a HOFer.

Posted by Jtpsops on 1/18/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):
So Rice, Dawson and Blyleven shouldn't be in by your standards - but we should trust the writers that covered them, right? Surely they know more than you and me about what makes a HOFer.

Does the phrase "by and large" confuse you?

Should I have used smaller words like "most of the time"?

Jesus, you must have OD'd on your arguement pills today.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I disagree. In 1905 or 1960 or whenever, a lot of people who covered game thought things like pitcher wins and saves and RBI (for hitters) were important stats. They voted for awards based on those "important" stats.

Instead of relying on the poor judgement (maybe through no fault of their own) of those writers, we should evaluate what actually happened on the field.

The game was played very differently back then. You can't just look at 1905 stats with your modern day understanding (and bias) while ignoring the context in which those stats were achieved.

"Boy, those 1905 players must have all been ****** hitters because they sure bunted a lot".

I didn't say anything about bunting.

There's a difference between knowing that the game has changed over time and claiming that the best way to evaluate players in past decades is by counting "top 8 CYA finishes."

C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

CYA and MVP voting indicates how players were perceived at the time that they played by the people who watched them play, by the experts of the day. Not through the lens of time by people who never saw them play.

You have to watch the games. Or trust the judgements of the people who did.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have the stats" is a poor philosophy.

What C-O-N-T-E-X-T is provided by knowing that Gossage finished top 6 in CYA voting 5 times that isn't apparent through his actual stats?

tec?

Posted by toddcommish on 1/18/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Using any sportswriters' opinion of greatness is a shaky proposition at best. That's why stuff like the CYA and MVP and even ROY is pretty tenuous reasoning. Jeff Kent won an MVP when he wasn't the best player on his own team. Juan Marichal never won a CYA despite being the best pitcher in the 60's (some say because he bashed Roseboro). Now we have an activist splinter group in the BBWAA that is fixated on keeping Bonds/Clemens out, but is oddly voting in guys like Bagwell and Piazza because "they're not sure" about them.

Writers in general are swayed by personal biases, not even related to on-field performance.

We're roughly the same age. We saw 4 man rotations and 300+ inning guys. But we never saw 500 inning guys. Are you sure you want to say you understand that era better than the guys that covered it? I sure as hell don't. Ty Cobb has been portrayed as one dislikeable fellow. I guess that's what's kept him out of the HOF.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2017 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 1/18/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):
So Rice, Dawson and Blyleven shouldn't be in by your standards - but we should trust the writers that covered them, right? Surely they know more than you and me about what makes a HOFer.

Does the phrase "by and large" confuse you?

Should I have used smaller words like "most of the time"?

Jesus, you must have OD'd on your arguement pills today.

No, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. On guys you agree should be in the hall, you preach "trust the voters! they knew what they were doing!", but when you don't agree, you allow them those exceptions. YOU aren't the ultimate authority on the HOF - you can't declare exceptions, and then cry nonsense when others cite their own exceptions.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 1/18/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Using any sportswriters' opinion of greatness is a shaky proposition at best. That's why stuff like the CYA and MVP and even ROY is pretty tenuous reasoning. Jeff Kent won an MVP when he wasn't the best player on his own team. Juan Marichal never won a CYA despite being the best pitcher in the 60's (some say because he bashed Roseboro). Now we have an activist splinter group in the BBWAA that is fixated on keeping Bonds/Clemens out, but is oddly voting in guys like Bagwell and Piazza because "they're not sure" about them.

Writers in general are swayed by personal biases, not even related to on-field performance.

We're roughly the same age. We saw 4 man rotations and 300+ inning guys. But we never saw 500 inning guys. Are you sure you want to say you understand that era better than the guys that covered it? I sure as hell don't. Ty Cobb has been portrayed as one dislikeable fellow. I guess that's what's kept him out of the HOF.

I just think that sportswriters are notorious grudge-bearers, and that giving them "power" over the HOF and various awards gives them excessive influence over the perception of various players. We have a couple of Bay Area reporters that have bragged about how they will NEVER vote for Bonds because he "cheated". Yet, they still voted for Gaylord Perry. Who cheated. Every. Single. Game.

Why? Probably because Gaylord was a good, old country boy who loved to chat up the local media, and Bonds was a surly loner who treated the local media like crap. Welcome to your HOF voters!