Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[AC]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Well you have a case. And so do I. Sandberg was better at certain things and so was Morgan. To say one is better overall, there really is no stat for that (video game OVR), in the end it's almost qualitative.

fWAR, brWAR, VORP, WARP, pick your poision

I mean I already cited stuff like HRs, playoff stats, HRs and XBHs as rate stats, slugging percentage, and batting average--all of which Sandberg wins at.

Sandberg's ISO is .11 points higher than Morgan. That's not enough to be considered a large difference. Batting average is meaningless in this argument as there are stats I've cited that Morgan leads in that aren't absolutely ridiculous and I've seen you citing playoff stats which kinda annoys me.

If you aren't pleased with those stats, well then we just might not be able to agree.

Well yeah, no duh we won't be able to lol, but I'm fairly comfortable that I, 55, snepp, Sportsforever, DrJones, and co are in the right here.

I could use media awards like Gold Gloves, and "cherry pick" other "stats" like Silver Sluggers (Ryno winning 7 or 8 to 1) where Sandberg also holds the edge to further my point.

and you could do that, and I'd lol

My main contention though is I'd rather have Ryne Sandberg batting over Joe Morgan. And that's what make me rate Sandberg ahead. Disagree all you want.

I want to disagree quite a bit, because there are a bevy of reasons why one should rather have Morgan.

Now, some of this is certainly biased (unlike you perfectly unbiased beings who are congregating here to argue for the glory of Joe Morgan) because I saw Sandberg play and did not see Morgan play.

Lmao, everyone has a bias. But hell, I love the Cubs, I'd figure my bias would lie with them. Unfortunately, my bias for statistics is greater and the stats say Morgan is quite a bit better than Sandberg.

Also, wow, a Cubs fan arguing for Sandberg over Morgan, how surprising lol

But the thing that bugs me about Joe Morgan is he played 22 years and had 6 "great" seasons. Sandberg played 6 fewer years, and his career was interrupted by a premature retirement, and he still has those 6-7 great years. So longevity +points? Or longevity -points?

Sandberg's highest fWAR season was 8.0. During Morgan's peak, he had 8.7, 9.5, 8.6, 11.0, 9.5. Fact: Sandberg had 7 seasons of over 4 fWAR, which is what I'd consider great. Fact: Morgan had 11 seasons of over 4 fWAR. Morgan was better for longer. So I'd say positive longevity points, yeah.

responses in bold because I'm waaaaaaaay too tired to multi quote

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

responses in bold because I'm waaaaaaaay too tired to multi quote

I still don't agree that Morgan was better, although I appreciate you providing a compelling, and strong, case of more than one stat.

So much of the time, someone's all like 100 career WAR vs. 65 career WAR, so case closed. Obviously if it were that easy, selection to the HOF wouldn't be such a mystery, now would it? And, sure, part of it is some of the voters don't have a clue, but a lot of them know more about baseball (have seen and experienced more) than all of us in this thread combined. So, it's not so cut and dried.

I could spend hours picking at the methodology that goes into the "baked" stats like wOBA, wRC, OPS+, WAR, and all that jazz, and have the stats classes under my belt to be able to do it, but I think this stalemate is a good stopping point.

__________________________________________

New player: what do people think about Jeff Bagwell and the hall?

[55]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

New player: what do people think about Jeff Bagwell and the hall?

Absolute lock and rightfully so.

Next.

[12]

There's some great discussion in this thread... Easily one of OS' best.

I'm sure he has been brought up... But how about Edgar Martinez? I think I know where this one will go but am curious to see what you guys think.

[55]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

We've already discussed his case on here ad nauseam.

[12]

We've already discussed his case on here ad nauseam.

Fair enough, I'll go find it.

[AC]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I'm not entirely sure on if I chimed in on Martinez when it was discussed in here, so I'll say yeah, I think he should be in.

[Amoo316]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Absolute lock and rightfully so.

Next.

Wouldn't steroids like to have a word with you about this?

[DamnYanks2]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Wouldn't steroids like to have a word with you about this?

There has never been any evidence that Bagwell juiced, as far as we know he's clean.

[55]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Wouldn't steroids like to have a word with you about this?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Amoo316]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

There has never been any evidence that Bagwell juiced, as far as we know he's clean.

We should just assume that a guy 13 years into his career (35 years old) was still "naturally" hitting 39 dingers a year?

You can't tell me we had all those guys juicing and he didn't get in on it. As much as I liked the guy, I would throw him right in with the rest of them unfortunately, and that sucks since I enjoyed the Killer-Bs when they weren't playing my Bravos.

[ubernoob]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

We should just assume that a guy 13 years into his career (35 years old) was still "naturally" hitting 39 dingers a year?

You can't tell me we had all those guys juicing and he didn't get in on it. As much as I liked the guy, I would throw him right in with the rest of them unfortunately, and that sucks since I enjoyed the Killer-Bs when they weren't playing my Bravos.

That's such a poor argument to use. Not singling you out, but I see it everywhere.

"We had no proof he wasn't on them."

We have no proof NOBODY wasn't on them in that timeframe. Strength builds naturally as we age. Stamina decreases. We had all these fitness tests, and the older you got (I'm talking categories were like 18-27, 28-35, 36-45 (not necessarily those numbers, but some age like that.)

Should we just disqualify everyone who has played post-1990 from the hall of fame? There's no proof that everyone playing during that timeframe didn't use PEDs.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

We should just assume that a guy 13 years into his career (35 years old) was still "naturally" hitting 39 dingers a year?

You can't tell me we had all those guys juicing and he didn't get in on it. As much as I liked the guy, I would throw him right in with the rest of them unfortunately, and that sucks since I enjoyed the Killer-Bs when they weren't playing my Bravos.

What an absurd, arbitrary and slanderous argument. It almost makes me embarrassed to be an OS Member when I see this junk.

Hank Aaron hit 44 HRs at 35, must've been juicing. The Babe hit 49 (but his only PED was hot dogs, right?). Mike Schmidt hit 33 @ age 35 and then went up to 37 the next year (OMG!!). The list of sluggers that hit 30-40+ HRs at age 35 is literally too long to list here. Any 5 minute jam session on Baseball Reference will prove that.

For a guy who peaked a few years earlier in the low-mid 40s in homers, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with Bagwell hitting 39 taters at 35 years old. And then he went on to hit 27 and 3 HRs in his final 2 years, which you declined to mention, as his back finally gave out.

There are plenty of guys in baseball who we have a reasonable suspicion to doubt. Guys like Bret Boone and Barry Bonds. Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez. Guys whose power literally came from nowhere.

Let's not drag guys with zero linkage at all into the mess. If it comes out that Bagwell's guilty, well then I was wrong. Until that day though, he's innocent.

You liked him except for the fact he's a cheat and liar and steroid-pumping scoundrel? Yeah, ok, sure.....cool story, bro

[DamnYanks2]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

We should just assume that a guy 13 years into his career (35 years old) was still "naturally" hitting 39 dingers a year?

You can't tell me we had all those guys juicing and he didn't get in on it. As much as I liked the guy, I would throw him right in with the rest of them unfortunately, and that sucks since I enjoyed the Killer-Bs when they weren't playing my Bravos.

That's not a reasonable argument. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? But really that doesn't even apply in this circumstance, because Bagwell has never been suspected of anything. No evidence, nothing, just wild shots in the dark.

So we are gonna keep him out of the hall, because he was guilty of playing in the steroid era? That's completely unfair, and illogical. Bagwell hit 39 in 94' too. There's no basis for your argument, Bagwell's numbers never jumped in a absurd way. He was steady, consistent, offensive monster from the word go.

We can't just pretend The Steroid Era never happened, we can't just sweep it under the rug, and pretend Palmeiro, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire etc.. never existed.

By your line of thinking, Ken Griffey Jr, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson and Frank Thomas don't belong in the hall either. Correct? If so that's just ridiculous.

[ubernoob]

Cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented. There isn't one person I can think of that I wouldn't vote into the hall of game based on anything they have done off the field, save for a crime like murder.