Baseball HOF electee

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

...along with some of the insane, dickheadish comments by Gammons as of late...

???

I'm not disputing you, just wondering what comments you're referring to...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

???

I'm not disputing you, just wondering what comments you're referring to...

http://umpbump.com/press/when-did-pe...-so-crotchety/

Want to know about winners? (Dustin) Pedroia gave up his scholarship at Arizona State to free up money to sign a much-needed pitcher, so when the Sun Devils reached the College World Series, coaches and players had “DP” on their caps in honor of their leader who never got to Omaha. The sabermetrics guys in their garages never understand these things.- October 29, 2007

Raines, Rickey Henderson and Wade Boggs were the best of the ’80s and early ’90s, and while some of our sabermetric fellows do not believe players are humans, Raines made every team he was on better - December 29, 2007

I voted for (Jim Rice), but it’s been interesting that there have been people like Rob Neyer who are so obsessed with degrading Rice’s career. - January 3, 2008

The first bolded part originally said "stats-nazis" and was later changed.


I noticed the comments on Raines and about Neyer and wondered what Gammons problem is now. He's been a guy thats pushed for Bill James to be in the Hall of Fame, but after seeing how personal he takes any criticism of Jim Rice I'm wondering if that isn't just the Red Sox homer in him.

[ISiddiqui]

The funny thing about the second statement is that Raines is being pushed, the most, by the "sabermetric fellows".

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Its sad, as non-traditional stats have become more available and new ways of analyzing players across generations are readily accessible the gap between the traditional minds and the stats community is growing.

We're approaching an interesting time in HOF voting but I wouldn't call the lack of good analysis "sad". To me, the HOF isn't and was never intended to be a pure representation of the best players in history. Instead, it's honor for players who's performance have connected with fans in a way that achieves this type of immortality (through the vote of the writers). Whenever I watched a baseball game on TV growing up, the three stats you saw on the screen when a batter came to the plate were AVG, HR, RBI. That's what mattered, we decided, for decades. And thus, those numbers created huge stars. The writers respected that and honored that stardom with the HOF.

So some egg head comes around and decides that there's a different, more accurate way to statistically value players. Until those parameters truly catch on with the mainstream, I don't really care if they're not a part of HOF induction analysis. The HOF (to me), isn't about the trendiest new stat someone came up with. It's about stardom, about connecting with fans. Biggio was never able to do that. He never really seemed larger than life, never seemed like a big star, never transcended the playing field in the way HOF players do. I'd don't think he belongs.

Just my, insignificant, (over-romanticized) view of the HOF.

[dawgfan]

I guess we just have different standards for the Hall. In my mind, it's the place to honor the best players of the game, not the most famous. And the "trendy" new baseball stats in fact do a much better job of describing who the best players are, thus why they are gaining more currency in Hall of Fame debates.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And the "trendy" new baseball stats in fact do a much better job of describing who the best players are

I do agree with that part - I just see Cooperstown as more a tourist destination for fans than a reward for players.