All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > HOF makes first rule change in 30 years.
7/29/2014 4:09 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Because you're an idiot?
Bingo.


7/29/2014 4:14 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Because you're an idiot?
Close.  You're a dipshit 20something y/o who likely knows about as much about Brooks Robinson as a 9 y/o girl.   If you were capable of evaluating the skill of a baseball player, you'd be doing it instead of posting your drivel on the internet. 

Got it now?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/29/2014 4:20 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 7/29/2014 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2014 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Here's Beltre's first 12 years of his career:

Adrian Beltre Batting Stats for Years 1998 to 2009

Year Tm G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB
1998-2009 LAD,SEA 1681 6877 6285 828 1700 348 26 250 906 111 38 478 1084 .270 .325 .453 .779 105 2850 153 53 14 47 55
Average 140 573 524 69 142 29 2 21 76 9 3 40 90           238 13 4 1 4 5
per 162 games 162 661 604 80 164 34 3 24 87 11 4 46 105           274 15 6 2 5 6


Why stop at 2009?

From 2010 on he's hit:

.315/.359/.541 with a 138 OPS+ and 141 home runs. He's put up over 30 WAR from 2010 to now.

You're cutting out some of his best years.
We stop at 2009 because he has hit the age when his overall numbers should start to show a slight but consistent dip year after year.

Instead, he gets better?

Dominantly better?

As he ages past his prime?

Year after year?

Really?
7/29/2014 4:18 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2014 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Because you're an idiot?
Close.  You're a dipshit 20something y/o who likely knows about as much about Brooks Robinson as a 9 y/o girl.   If you were capable of evaluating the skill of a baseball player, you'd be doing it instead of posting your drivel on the internet. 

Got it now?
By this logic nobody here can evaluate the skills of a baseball player, which pretty much makes the whole dicussion pointless, doesn't it?
If it was a discussion, no

If it was a debate, yes

But since it's a mud slinging, name calling, yelling contest? Not at all
7/29/2014 4:26 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2014 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Because you're an idiot?
Close.  You're a dipshit 20something y/o who likely knows about as much about Brooks Robinson as a 9 y/o girl.   If you were capable of evaluating the skill of a baseball player, you'd be doing it instead of posting your drivel on the internet. 

Got it now?
By this logic nobody here can evaluate the skills of a baseball player, which pretty much makes the whole dicussion pointless, doesn't it?
I'm pretty sure 99.6% of all internet discussions are pointless.   Seldom does anyone say "Yeah, I didn't look at it that way.  I think you're right."   Do you disagree?

Now, to answer your question, I'll be the first to admit my talent evaluation skills are nothing to crow about.   The biggest mistake I made was blasting the Yanks for trading Roberto Kelly to make room for Bernie Williams.  Kelly looked like a 5-tool guy who just needed time to refine his game.   Oopsy.

Now, on to Robinson.  I never understood all the fuss.   I saw the D but his offense was never that impressive even by 1960s-1970s thirdbasemen standards.   I also think the game was played a little differently back then.   But, if I'm buidling a team under the "You get their best 5 seasons" circumstances, I think everyone takes Beltre now.   And everyone takes Robinson 5 years ago. 
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/29/2014 4:50 PM
That's where it gets tricky.   D is hard to quantify, with any real accuracy, now and even tougher from the 60s-70s.    Just using OPS+, since it's easy, Beltre is obviously better but only by about 9-10%.    If BR's glove is all it's said to have been, they're pretty even, IMO.   Then it just becomes a matter of what your particular teams needs worse.   
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/29/2014 6:04 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 5:40:00 PM (view original):
Granted, I've only seen a few dozen full games of Brooks Robinson's play, and not all of them were from his prime.  But I'd say that offensively, Beltre has been worth about 20 runs per season more than Brooks Robinson.  That's based on pure statistics.  And from what I have seen, I have a hard time believing their defense is 20 runs a season different.  That's huge.  But it is tricky.  We now have such a good statistical understanding of baseball offense, you can really say with a fairly narrow confidence interval what a player is really worth offensively on an average team, or with reasonable certainty on a specific team with specific teammates; this is particularly true if a guy's offense is within the normal range, which I think both Robinson and Beltre may comfortably be said to be.  They're both HOF guys in my book for longevity, consistency, and defense, not for having blow-you-away offensive stats.

Fielding is still far more ambiguous.  I don't think Brooks was 20 runs a year better than Beltre, as I stated above.  But it really is hard to say.  Maybe you'd rather have Beltre on a good offensive team, where his production is highlighted and reinforced by the guys around him, or prefer Robinson on a poor offensive team trying to survive on pitching and defense.  I guess it's close enough that you could see that being the correct valuation.  As it happens, Beltre has played much of his career on poor offensive teams, and Brooks played much of his on good offensive teams, so maybe both of their values were minimized relative to what they could have been.  But that's extremely speculative.
In my opinion, it's reasonable to assume that Robinson wasn't 20 runs a season better defensively than Beltre. 

By UZR, Beltre has consistently put up 10-20 run seasons. That fits in the Great - Gold Glove caliber range according to Fangraphs. Robinson would have to be worth 30-40 runs a season defensively. I don't think anyone is capable of putting up those kind of numbers over a long period of time. 
7/30/2014 12:07 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/27/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
I think this is big considering the way voters have treated steroid users. Bonds and Clemens, two of the greatest players ever, may never be elected to the hall of fame.

sayonara cheaters

7/30/2014 7:54 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 7/29/2014 3:11:00 PM (view original):
My point is that a long career that is mostly average with a few peak years does not a HOFer make.


Where is this written?
Two posts above yours.  The one that you quoted.
Sorry, we didn't realize that you established the rules for what qualifies a player for the Hall of Fame.  My understanding was that there were no explicit instructions for this, and it was at the discretion of each individual voter to determine what made a player worthy or unworthy.

Fortunately, most of them aren't stubborn enough that they'd rather say "maybe Sandy Koufax wasn't a Hall of Famer" than abandon their absurdly stupid original argument.

What argument have I abandoned?

My argument all along is the Beltre has had a very long but overall very average career.  He's having some peak years right now, and has compiled a lot of numbers (hits and home runs) through longevity,  But for the majority of his career he's been little more than a slightly above average player.  The purpose of the HOF is not to honor slightly above average players.

7/30/2014 8:00 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Seriously, Mike, would you prefer to have Robinson or Beltre?

Keep in mind that, barring a collapse down the stretch, Beltre will have hit .300 more times in the past 3 years than Robinson did in his career.  And he hit 30+ homers more times last year than Brooks did in his career.  And Beltre has probably already amassed more defensive value at 3B to date than anyone else since Robinson.  I'm not saying he's as good a defender as Brooks was.  But he's very good.  And he actually provides some offensive value.  Brooks Robinson was basically an average hitter in all respects, a little more than median power, near the median hit rate for his time, and below the median walk rate, but nothing very far from par.  Even if you're not blown away by Beltre, I don't think you can reasonably call him an average hitter.  He's a legitimate middle of the order bat.
Another dumb argument, approaching BL level.

You're comparing the offensive stats of a guy who's playing in an offense-inflated era against a player who played in an offense-deflated era and saying "SEE!  See how much better the first guy is!".

Good job.

7/30/2014 9:02 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2014 7:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 7/29/2014 3:11:00 PM (view original):
My point is that a long career that is mostly average with a few peak years does not a HOFer make.


Where is this written?
Two posts above yours.  The one that you quoted.
Sorry, we didn't realize that you established the rules for what qualifies a player for the Hall of Fame.  My understanding was that there were no explicit instructions for this, and it was at the discretion of each individual voter to determine what made a player worthy or unworthy.

Fortunately, most of them aren't stubborn enough that they'd rather say "maybe Sandy Koufax wasn't a Hall of Famer" than abandon their absurdly stupid original argument.

What argument have I abandoned?

My argument all along is the Beltre has had a very long but overall very average career.  He's having some peak years right now, and has compiled a lot of numbers (hits and home runs) through longevity,  But for the majority of his career he's been little more than a slightly above average player.  The purpose of the HOF is not to honor slightly above average players.

I think his point was that you said "a reasonable case could be made for Koufax as a non-HOFer."     He had a short career, with a limited number of peak seasons, but that's a losing argument. 

I don't think he's followed the same path as Beltre:
2 partial seasons
3-4 league average(more or less)
1 stinker(1958)
5 best pitcher in baseball

Which 5 seasons was Beltre the best hitter in baseball?   It's not the same argument.
of 15
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > HOF makes first rule change in 30 years.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.