Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/8/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Bobby Bonilla made 4 straight and 7 of 9.     One of the best RF of his time?

Do you remember Bonilla as a Pirate? There's a reason why the Mets made him the richest player in baseball.  During his late Pirate career, yes, he was one of the best RFers in the game.  Finished 2nd and 3rd in MVP before he left.

Once you consider other factors, you realize he's not a HOFer, if that's your next question.

Can we consider the other factors, the ones before and after his 6 straight A/S appearances, for Lofton?

Sure.  When you look at the other factors, you find Lofton is much more worthy of the HOF than Bonilla is.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/8/2014 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/8/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Bobby Bonilla made 4 straight and 7 of 9.     One of the best RF of his time?

Do you remember Bonilla as a Pirate? There's a reason why the Mets made him the richest player in baseball.  During his late Pirate career, yes, he was one of the best RFers in the game.  Finished 2nd and 3rd in MVP before he left.

Once you consider other factors, you realize he's not a HOFer, if that's your next question.

Can we consider the other factors, the ones before and after his 6 straight A/S appearances, for Lofton?

Sure.  When you look at the other factors, you find Lofton is much more worthy of the HOF than Bonilla is.

I also find that neither deserved to be in the HOF.

If Lofton had stolen money from the Mets, would you think the same of him?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by byeags25 on 1/8/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by byeags25 on 1/8/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I normally try and stay away from these conversations, but I just don't understand the logic behind this.  If a difference of 1 over the course of a season isn't big, then how is a difference of 15-20 over the course of a 20 year career big?  It's the exact same thing.  The player with the higher number was worth 15-20 more wins over the course of their career, or 1 win per season (assuming both players played 20 seasons of course)

WAR is inexact. It's three components (offense, defense, and baserunning) measured in runs and then translated to wins above a theoretical replacement level.

It doesn't make sense to insist on it being exact, like 3.4 being measurably different than 3.1. Instead you round off. But, over 20 years, a 15 or 20 win difference is significant.

I understand what WAR is.  What I don't understand is the logic that over 1 year, a difference of 1 WAR is insignificant, but over 20 years, a difference of 20 WAR (1 per season) is significant

David Ortiz hit 30 home runs this year and Prince Fielder hit 25. To me, a 5 home run difference in one year is not much of a difference. But over 20 years? That's 100 home runs. A big difference.

So, if a player is insignificantly better over a long period of time, he should be in the HOF while the other is ignored?

And that's not counting the sketchy dWAR that factors in.

It's Maddux, Glavine, Thomas.  

I don't understand the question.  You mean if he signed a huge deal and was pretty bad and a horrible clubhouse guy and was paid until he was 112 like Bonilla? No, I'd think differently of him.

And I agree, neither should be in.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/8/2014 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):
WAR, ************!!!!

I know.

Just curious - Look at this link and tell me which guys below Lofton who are better players, and more worthy HOFers.  IMO, there are a few there.  

www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_CF.shtml

Billy Hamilton, Larry Doby, Earl Averill, Edd Roush and Hack Wilson are all better than KL and are in the HOF.

Jim Edmonds, Jimmy Wynn, Fred Lynn, Bernie Williams and Wally Berger are also all better than KL and are not HOF worthy.

There's also a bunch more below KL on that list that can arguably be considered as good as (or better) than KL.

For KL to be ranked 9th on this list shows that JAWS is probably not the best way to rank players.

Here's another list that has KL ranked at #35.

http://clients.virtualatlantic.com/thebaseballpage.v2.com/players/ranked-top-50-center-fielders.aspx?id=8

OK you clearly value Lofton less than I do.  I'm not sure you remember how good he was defensively, because I'm not sure why you think a couple of those guys are better.  And stop posting pages from your blog on here. 

Lofton was basically Ken Griffey Jr. without the power. He was much better than Bernie Williams.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Lofton was basically Ken Griffey Jr. without the power. He was much better than Bernie Williams.

FWIW, that's a BIG deal.  Power at the CF position is invaluable, considering how rare it is.

Ken Griffey maybe. Career ops of 107. Great defensive OF'er. Very average with the stick except a decent career batting average. A compiler.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/8/2014 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Lofton was basically Ken Griffey Jr. without the power. He was much better than Bernie Williams.

FWIW, that's a BIG deal.  Power at the CF position is invaluable, considering how rare it is.

Oh, of course. Ken Griffey Jr is among the all time great, super elite, inner circle guys. Lofton is a borderline candidate who fell off the ballot immediately.

But Lofton's defense was truly elite and he got on base 37% of the time and was a great base runner. Like we both said already, I wouldn't have voted for him this year. I just think it's a shame he fell off before he could really be considered.

Were his stats going to change somehow to give him more consideration? Or was someone going to invent some new stat to give his career more credence?

Posted by The Taint on 1/8/2014 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Were his stats going to change somehow to give him more consideration? Or was someone going to invent some new stat to give his career more credence?

Have you always been a dick? Or am I confusing you with someone else on here who used to be reasonable?

Look at Tim Raines, for example. We know now that he was roughly as valuable as Tony Gwynn. But because fans (and writers) loved BA and ignored OBP, Gwynn was a first ballot Hall of Famer and Raines is still fighting to get 50% of the vote. Hopefully he'll get it eventually because we have improved our understanding of the game.

Not saying that Lofton deserves to be in like Raines does, but he's borderline. And if we come to understand things better and realize that he deserves to be in, he can't be elected because he fell off the ballot.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by byeags25 on 1/8/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by byeags25 on 1/8/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I normally try and stay away from these conversations, but I just don't understand the logic behind this.  If a difference of 1 over the course of a season isn't big, then how is a difference of 15-20 over the course of a 20 year career big?  It's the exact same thing.  The player with the higher number was worth 15-20 more wins over the course of their career, or 1 win per season (assuming both players played 20 seasons of course)

WAR is inexact. It's three components (offense, defense, and baserunning) measured in runs and then translated to wins above a theoretical replacement level.

It doesn't make sense to insist on it being exact, like 3.4 being measurably different than 3.1. Instead you round off. But, over 20 years, a 15 or 20 win difference is significant.

I understand what WAR is.  What I don't understand is the logic that over 1 year, a difference of 1 WAR is insignificant, but over 20 years, a difference of 20 WAR (1 per season) is significant

David Ortiz hit 30 home runs this year and Prince Fielder hit 25. To me, a 5 home run difference in one year is not much of a difference. But over 20 years? That's 100 home runs. A big difference.

So what's your cutoff before the numbers become significant?  10 years?  Would 10 WAR (or 50 HR since you changed the stat) over a 10 year period be a significant difference?  I'm not arguing whether 5 HR a season is a big difference or not.  I really haven't thought about it.  I'm not even arguing whether 1 WAR a season is a big difference or not either.  My point is this.  If a number for 1 year is considered insignificant, then that number averaged out over the length of the 2 players' careers (assuming the length is the same) has to also be considered insignificant.  It's just inconsistent to look at it any other way

LOL @ Raines dropping 6% and Edgar dropping 10% in voting results.