Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2016 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Or I just tired of arguing with you over what I said.

Here's the thing. Give me 20 AB against Kluber. I'm not delusional enough to think I'll get a hit. But I might foul a few off. He might miss the strike zone a couple of times. Suddenly, I've got a walk. yay me

To borrow a genius example I heard recently, give me 20 PA against Kluber. I'm not delusional enough to think I can make hard contact but I might sneak a grounder through a hole for a single. Yay me.

Do you think there is more skilled involved in getting a hit or taking a walk?

Nope, it takes way more skill to draw a walk, than it is to get a hit.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/16/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Jeter >> Raines.

To argue otherwise is massively retarded.

But it's you, so there's that.

Raines is something like the 8th- or 9th-best LF of all time. Jeter is something like the 6th- or 7th-best shortstop.

So maybe, relatively speaking, Jeter is a little bit better?

The reality is that a lot of players get in. Using 8000 PAs as the standard of a rough minimum to be likely to considered for induction, there have been only 45 guys in history to play long enough to get in and spend at least a few years at SS (IE that counts Banks, even though he played more of his career at first). There have been 46 at LF, and that includes Ruth, Musial, Robinson, etc. In fact, there are only 275 players in history with 8000 PAs. Total. So basically, if you're good enough to stick around for a long career, you're already almost halfway into the Hall. Even if you pared it down to guys who "feel" right, that's probably close to 1/3 or at least 1/4 of long careers. Raines feels right to me, but beyond that, I just don't see any reasonable sort of standard by which his numbers don't belong. Dude is the 2nd-best base thief in 150 years of professional baseball. You'd think that would count for something with you stat-fearing old farts.

Are you arguing that LF = SS?

Go ahead. Say that out loud.

Where did I say that? I think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF. Based on the fact that virtually the same number of players have had a HOF-length career while playing a big chunk at each position, that assumption checks out. Obviously SS is more challenging defensively. COF hit more. Of those 45 SS, only 2 (A-Rod and Honus Wagner) have a career wRC+ over 120. The big half (23 of 45) are under 100 - they made long careers out of defense. While it's impressive in a sense to put together that long of a career while being below league average with the bat, most of those guys are not ever going to be considered as serious HOF candidates. Of the 46 LF, 28 have a career wRC+ over 120. That's a far cry from 2. Only 3 have a career wRC+ under 100. That's a far cry from 23.

Nobody said the positions were equal. Obviously the qualifications to play at each are extremely different. But that doesn't mean the number of guys who should make the HOF at each position should be different. Way to massively oversimplify.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2016 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 9:32:00 PM (view original):
Sure. Getting on base is better than getting out.

But, if you would, humor me, does it take more skill to get a hit or take a walk?

If walking is so easy, why don't more major leaguers have high walk rates?

A hitter who can walk 15% of the time can probably find a spot on any roster. You'd think guys barely hanging on would just take more walks and lock down a job somewhere.

Who said it was easy?

The question was, and still is, does it take more skill to get a hit or take a walk?

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/17/2016 5:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/16/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Jeter >> Raines.

To argue otherwise is massively retarded.

But it's you, so there's that.

Raines is something like the 8th- or 9th-best LF of all time. Jeter is something like the 6th- or 7th-best shortstop.

So maybe, relatively speaking, Jeter is a little bit better?

The reality is that a lot of players get in. Using 8000 PAs as the standard of a rough minimum to be likely to considered for induction, there have been only 45 guys in history to play long enough to get in and spend at least a few years at SS (IE that counts Banks, even though he played more of his career at first). There have been 46 at LF, and that includes Ruth, Musial, Robinson, etc. In fact, there are only 275 players in history with 8000 PAs. Total. So basically, if you're good enough to stick around for a long career, you're already almost halfway into the Hall. Even if you pared it down to guys who "feel" right, that's probably close to 1/3 or at least 1/4 of long careers. Raines feels right to me, but beyond that, I just don't see any reasonable sort of standard by which his numbers don't belong. Dude is the 2nd-best base thief in 150 years of professional baseball. You'd think that would count for something with you stat-fearing old farts.

Are you arguing that LF = SS?

Go ahead. Say that out loud.

Where did I say that? I think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF. Based on the fact that virtually the same number of players have had a HOF-length career while playing a big chunk at each position, that assumption checks out. Obviously SS is more challenging defensively. COF hit more. Of those 45 SS, only 2 (A-Rod and Honus Wagner) have a career wRC+ over 120. The big half (23 of 45) are under 100 - they made long careers out of defense. While it's impressive in a sense to put together that long of a career while being below league average with the bat, most of those guys are not ever going to be considered as serious HOF candidates. Of the 46 LF, 28 have a career wRC+ over 120. That's a far cry from 2. Only 3 have a career wRC+ under 100. That's a far cry from 23.

Nobody said the positions were equal. Obviously the qualifications to play at each are extremely different. But that doesn't mean the number of guys who should make the HOF at each position should be different. Way to massively oversimplify.

"Where did I say that?" In your first two sentences.

"I think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF." Why is that a reasonable assumption?

" think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF. Based on the fact that virtually the same number of players have had a HOF-length career while playing a big chunk at each position, that assumption checks out."

Uh oh. Tec must have enrolled at the MikeT School of Reading Comprehension.

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/17/2016 9:21:00 AM (view original):
" think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF. Based on the fact that virtually the same number of players have had a HOF-length career while playing a big chunk at each position, that assumption checks out."

Uh oh. Tec must have enrolled at the MikeT School of Reading Comprehension.

Buuuuurn

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/17/2016 9:21:00 AM (view original):
" think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF. Based on the fact that virtually the same number of players have had a HOF-length career while playing a big chunk at each position, that assumption checks out."

Uh oh. Tec must have enrolled at the MikeT School of Reading Comprehension.

Aren't they the same person? xD

Posted by tecwrg on 12/17/2016 8:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/17/2016 5:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/16/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2016 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Jeter >> Raines.

To argue otherwise is massively retarded.

But it's you, so there's that.

Raines is something like the 8th- or 9th-best LF of all time. Jeter is something like the 6th- or 7th-best shortstop.

So maybe, relatively speaking, Jeter is a little bit better?

The reality is that a lot of players get in. Using 8000 PAs as the standard of a rough minimum to be likely to considered for induction, there have been only 45 guys in history to play long enough to get in and spend at least a few years at SS (IE that counts Banks, even though he played more of his career at first). There have been 46 at LF, and that includes Ruth, Musial, Robinson, etc. In fact, there are only 275 players in history with 8000 PAs. Total. So basically, if you're good enough to stick around for a long career, you're already almost halfway into the Hall. Even if you pared it down to guys who "feel" right, that's probably close to 1/3 or at least 1/4 of long careers. Raines feels right to me, but beyond that, I just don't see any reasonable sort of standard by which his numbers don't belong. Dude is the 2nd-best base thief in 150 years of professional baseball. You'd think that would count for something with you stat-fearing old farts.

Are you arguing that LF = SS?

Go ahead. Say that out loud.

Where did I say that? I think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF. Based on the fact that virtually the same number of players have had a HOF-length career while playing a big chunk at each position, that assumption checks out. Obviously SS is more challenging defensively. COF hit more. Of those 45 SS, only 2 (A-Rod and Honus Wagner) have a career wRC+ over 120. The big half (23 of 45) are under 100 - they made long careers out of defense. While it's impressive in a sense to put together that long of a career while being below league average with the bat, most of those guys are not ever going to be considered as serious HOF candidates. Of the 46 LF, 28 have a career wRC+ over 120. That's a far cry from 2. Only 3 have a career wRC+ under 100. That's a far cry from 23.

Nobody said the positions were equal. Obviously the qualifications to play at each are extremely different. But that doesn't mean the number of guys who should make the HOF at each position should be different. Way to massively oversimplify.

"Where did I say that?" In your first two sentences.

"I think it's reasonable to assume a similar number of players from each position should be in the HOF." Why is that a reasonable assumption?

I think the burden of proof would be on you to prove that it's not a reasonable assumption. Each team needs exactly one LF and one SS, so they have relatively equal value if they're equally good relative to players at their own position. Or at least that would be the logical assumption. If there's some reason to think otherwise you'll have to enlighten me. At the bottom end of the spectrum I don't think that holds true. There tend to be more passable LF than passable SS, so at any given time the 20th or 25th-best SS in the league probably carries more value than the 20th or 25th-best LF. That bottom-end starter in a COF spot is probably easier to replace. But the 5th-best at each position is probably a lot more even, and from a historical perspective that would tend to become even more true.

You realize the standards to reach that level are vastly different for the positions, right? I mean, if you were somehow so oblivious you didn't realize it, I would think the fact that the majority of all SS who have 8000 career PAs have a wRC+ rating them as below league-average hitters while the majority of LF are at least 20% better than league average would point to that fact.

Jeter was a shoe-in for the HOF, right? And, to be fair, his 119 career wRC+ was 4th amongst those 45 shortstops. Defense and the fact that Arky Vaughan came up a little short of 8000 career PAs drop him a few spots in the all-time SS rankings for me, but he's close to top 5. Ever. His 119 wRC+ would tie him for 29th among the 46 OF, with Willie Horton, Jose Cruz, and Ken Griffey. Senior. Behind Heinie Manush, Gary Matthews, Jimmy Sheckard, Adam Dunn, Brian Downing, Jim Rice, and yes, Tim Raines (125), among others. If you ignore the 3000 hits, which don't really add intrinsic value to your on-field accomplishments, Jeter's not a HOF as a COF. He's just a pretty good hitter. 3000 hits and playing in NY probably would still have gotten him in, but realistically speaking, hit number 3000 is no more valuable on the field than hit number 2900 or 2800 or 2799. I get why milestones get you in, and unlike a lot of SABR guys I'm not really opposed to it. But that's the only reason he'd be in as a COF.

The problem you have when you have that mindset, is that you start "forcing" players in because their position isn't properly represented in volume.

Exactly. It would be as if people were complaining that the Pro Football HOF needs more punters because there are too many QBs.

No one is trying to force a number of players per position. The argument is that Jeter and Raines are on the same tier.

Under the current standard they both belong. If we tighten that standard, they're both out.

Well, that's pretty wrong but I don't feel like arguing about it. Because, once you're in a corner, you act like you can't read. You know, like when I asked if it took more skill to get a hit or take a walk.

But, I'll leave you with this. Raines has been on the ballot for years. No HOF. Jeter will be first ballot HOFer. Doesn't sound like same tier to me.

However, if you'd like to wager on Jeter's first ballot induction, I'm down. The loser can add "I'm a YUUUGGGGE ******* idiot" to each post.

Oh, wait, you're the sort of ******** who doesn't honor his bets. Nevermind.

Raines hasn't made it yet, but he'll get in this year. And, in a few years, Jeter will join him.

They are both Hall of Famers.

Raines had a shorter peak (7 years) of great and a very long period (15 years) of slightly above average. He was nothing special after age 27. Over the last 10 years or so of his career, he fell into the "Didn't he used to be somebody?" category. Never won a major award, only one minor award (a Silver Slugger). Maybe his career drop-off was due to the coke, but he falls short of HOF worthy.

Jeter was much more consistent for a much longer period. Over 3,600 career hits. One major award (ROY). Five Silver Sluggers (all after age 32). Five Gold Gloves (say what you want about that, but he still got the hardware). And a (literally) handful of WS rings.

No comparison between the two.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/18/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Raines had a shorter peak (7 years) of great and a very long period (15 years) of slightly above average. He was nothing special after age 27. Over the last 10 years or so of his career, he fell into the "Didn't he used to be somebody?" category. Never won a major award, only one minor award (a Silver Slugger). Maybe his career drop-off was due to the coke, but he falls short of HOF worthy.

Jeter was much more consistent for a much longer period. Over 3,600 career hits. One major award (ROY). Five Silver Sluggers (all after age 32). Five Gold Gloves (say what you want about that, but he still got the hardware). And a (literally) handful of WS rings.

No comparison between the two.

Raines' best full 10 years by OPS+ .... 151, 149, 145, 138, 138, 132, 129.................................... 122.....120, 117
Jeter's best full 10 years by OPS+. 153.....................................132........128, 127, 125, 125, 124...... 121............114, 111

Obviously the fact that Jeter played SS is a huge factor, but if we're just taking offense, I'd rather have Raines.