`
Connect With Us!
IOS Store
Share Thread:
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Biggio, Smoltz, Pedro and Big Unit are in
#21
You can compare guys at different positions in some ways. It is obviously much harder defensively so what I do is compare how each player handled their positions compared to their fellow players.

In that regard, Carlos Delgado, a former catcher became a competent first baseman with some flaws (he led the league in errors from the position three times). However, Delgado led the league in putouts five times and turned the most double plays four times.

In comparison, Kent led the league in errors five times while only once leading the league in assists and once in double plays turned.

As far as offense goes, Delgado was better than Kent even though Kent had 880 more plate appearances.
He had 473 home runs compared to 377 for Kent.
Kent had just six more RBI's despite playing in 263 more games.
Kent, a line drive hitter, batted .290 compared to .280 for Delgado, who was the better slugger.
Delgado's slugging percentage is .546 compared to .500 for Kent.
Delgado's on base percentage of .383 is better than .356 for Kent.
Delgado walked 300 more times than Kent.
Delgado crushed it in the postseaon too, batting .351 with 4 homers in 10 games, while Kent batted .276 with 9 home runs in 49 games.

I am also suspicious that Kent never had a slugging percentage better than .475 until 1998 when at the age of 30 he put up a .555 slugging percentage (the first of 9 seasons with a slugging percentage of .500 or better)

Delgado was consistent throughout his career even after they started testing for steroids (Which is not to say either of these two guys could have been on HGH or something else).

Again, this is not to say Kent was some steroid abusing slouch only to prove that Delgado was easily his equal and I believe to be better yet was kicked off the ballot on his first try while Kent gets three times the votes.

Also, Kent was not as good of a power hitting second baseman as Ryne Sandberg, Rogers Hornsby, Charles Gehringer, Nap Lajoie. I know you said he was arguably the greatest power hitter and he may have more home runs but that doesn't prove he had greater power since the game is played much differently today and he may have been aided by PED's.

Also, do not let this baseball argument stop you from making a trade with me because I hold no grudges in Baseball Hall of Fame debates. These arguments take on a life of their own and are impossible to control.

Reply
#22
Oh, no man. I dont even consider this an argument. Dont take offense to anything I say. I like discussing, even arguing different points of view. I like getting in good discussions with different beliefs. I like hearing others points and views on anything baseball. I've said it before, I dont like talking on line very much because you cant see any emotion. I will use any information I may have in an argument or discussion to prove a point, as I expect others to do the same. I will never hold a grudge with someone because they think differently than I do and have a different point of view. That would never come in the way of a trade, or even a friendship.
But, as I was saying before, you really can't compare positions. First base has always been a power position, while second base has been a finesse position. And I'm not saying this as a personal belief, this is predominantly how it's viewed and voted on. Even more so now that Sabermetrics are so relevant.
Also, dont get power hitter get confused with great hitter. Gehringer and Lajoie dont have as many home runs combined as Kent. I know times were different and fields larger, but I've never heard of either referred to as power hitters. He had more homeruns than any of them and only Hornsby had more rbi, and if I remember correctly, it was only a handful. Sandberg had about 500 less rbi, and was in no way a power hitter, having 200 and change in the homerun department.
Reply
#23
Lajoie and Hornsby were far and away better power hitters. They were considered two of the strongest hitters of their times.

Lajoie hit in the dead ball era. He would have been a 500 homer kind of a guy easily these days.

Hornsby was one of the top five hitters ever. His .577 slugging average is off the charts and in the top 10 of non-steroid users.

Gehringer was one of the most lethal doubles hitters ever. While he didn't hit more than 20 home runs, he did slam 60 doubles which is a testament to his power at a time when there were only a few major home run hitters.
Reply
#24
Not even close. The fact that he hit so many doubles was a testament to him being such a great hitter. He wasn't doubling them all off the wall, he found the gaps. As far as Lajoie goes, anyone who hit 8 homeruns back in the day was considered a power hitter. The fact that the dead ball era had such enormous fields helped these guys as hitters because fielders played way too deep, or way too shallow. When the ball was hit over their head, it rolled forever. Another little side note, why dont you check out why they called Christy Mathewson the big six. While there's several different theories, the most believed is that he stood 6 foot tall in an era that that was considered monstrous. While Lajoie was also over 6', he'd be playing with monsters now, not lollipop kids.
Reply
#25
You lost me on the Nap Lajoie argument.

You have to consider these players in their era.

Lajoie was a monster. He led his league in slugging four times which means he was the most powerful hitter in the league those years, not just at second base.

His .643 slugging percentage in the dead ball era in 1901 is beyond phenomenal. He had one of the 10 best hitting years ever with a .426 average to boot and the Triple Crown.

Lajoie led the league in doubles five times while Kent never led the league in any offensive category except for sacrifice flies.

Nevermind that he also had five batting titles. The guy was an absolute beast for his era which is how we judge players - how they dominated their error and in that respect Nap Lajoie had few equals as a power hitter for any position during his time let alone the rest of his all around skills.

I mean really, let's not compare Jeff Kent to Nap Lajoie it's just not serious.
Reply
#26
(01-06-2015, 08:00 PM)natejeffries Wrote: My problem is the percentages. They make no sense.

Delgado was much better than Kent yet he is off the ballot while Kent got four times as many votes.
Mattingly was much better than Kent yet he gets less votes.
Raines was very similar to Kenny Lofton yet Lofton was only on the ballot once while half the voters put in for Raines.
David Cone and Kevin Brown (alleged steroid user) were similar to Schilling (steroid suspicions) yet Cone and Brown were off the ballot the first time while Schilling gets 40 percent.
How does Lee Smith get more votes than Mussina? How is Lee Smith getting 30 percent (he once got 50 percent) of the vote when Reardon and John Franco couldn't get five percent?
Fred McGriff was as good or better than Bagwell but Bagwell gets more than four times the vote.

Excuse me if I rubbed your favorite player the wrong way but the point of this rant is the total lunacy of the way these voters put their votes together.

Thanks for allowing me to exercise my First Amendment right to write about the absurd.
apples and orangutans

1. kent played a different position. he is one of the top 5 hitting secondbaseman of all time, even when adjusted for era
2. mattingly has been on the ballot a much longer time than kent. also, plays first base
3. lofton isnt even in the same sentence as raines. not even close. stop it
4. cone and brown vs schilling: first, there has never been suspicions of schilling and steroid use. and believe me, if you ever saw him in spandex riding a bike during spring training, you would know that. in fact, schilling was one of the most vocal people against steroids. but schillings numbers, especially adjusted for era, are much better than cone and brown (who was a steroid user, not suspected)
5. lee versus mussina isnt an argument, but i would agree about reardon and franco to a degree. but smith was better than both of them
6. im a huge mcgriff homer. i think he is a borderline guy, who probably doesnt have quite enough to get in (his saber numbers are fairly average, to be honest). bagwell was the better player in most respects, especially when adjusting for park and league differentials
Reply
#27
I am an absolute lover of the older generations of players. I'm a vintage guy at heart. But to day any of the guys from the turn of last century could play today is insane. Several of the pitchers, maybe. From what I understand guys like Mathewson had stuff ahead of their time. The other position players, I dont believe so. The modern players today are physical specimens. They are far bigger, faster, stronger and play far better in tandem (fielding, double plays, etc.) with there teammates. I love those guys for everything they did for the game, they just wouldn't be able to compete with todays mlb players. Another factor most people overlook, foul balls did not count as strikes until 1903 (I believe). A batter could foul off as many as he like and it never counted as a strike. That was a huge factor why some of these guys averages were so high. They had a far bigger advantage over a pitcher (and todays modern player). Lastly, lets no forget there was no black or latino players in that era. Satchell Paige, Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, etc. dominitated white players in the exhibition games. It's a known fact Babe played with these guys whenever he got the chance because he loved the competition.
(01-07-2015, 06:51 AM)jacobystealshome Wrote: apples and orangutans

1. kent played a different position. he is one of the top 5 hitting secondbaseman of all time, even when adjusted for era
2. mattingly has been on the ballot a much longer time than kent. also, plays first base
3. lofton isnt even in the same sentence as raines. not even close. stop it
4. cone and brown vs schilling: first, there has never been suspicions of schilling and steroid use. and believe me, if you ever saw him in spandex riding a bike during spring training, you would know that. in fact, schilling was one of the most vocal people against steroids. but schillings numbers, especially adjusted for era, are much better than cone and brown (who was a steroid user, not suspected)
5. lee versus mussina isnt an argument, but i would agree about reardon and franco to a degree. but smith was better than both of them
6. im a huge mcgriff homer. i think he is a borderline guy, who probably doesnt have quite enough to get in (his saber numbers are fairly average, to be honest). bagwell was the better player in most respects, especially when adjusting for park and league differentials
+1 on everything. I forgot to mention Schill dog had never been implicated.
Reply
#28
I'm completely lost on a couple things.

Your saying guys who played at the turn of the century or before besides a few pitchers couldn't play today?

I guess we should just kick them out of the Hall of Fame because they might have played against guys who were shorter than players who played today.

I guess Jose Altuve should be kicked out of baseball and sent back to 1897 because at 5'6, he just doesn't comport with the physical specimens of today who are so much more gifted than Willie Keeler, who at 5'4 struck out five times in a 152 game season in 1906 when they had the same rules as today while Mike Trout strikes out 184 times but I digress...

Jacobystealshome - always good for a spirited debate but I have to disagree with your analysis.

1. Kent is one of the five best hitting second basemen of all time.
I disagree.
Here are eight guys better:: Rogers Hornsby, Charles Gehringer, Rod Carew, Nap Lajoie, Eddie Collins, Ryne Sandberg, Jackie Robinson and Frankie Frisch.

2. Not sure what you mean about Mattingly

3. "Lofton isn't even in the same sentence as Raines"
I disagree.

Check this out.

Raines career batting average: .294
Lofton career batting average: .299

Raines on-base percentage: .385
Lofton on-base percentage: .372

Raines slugging average: .425
Lofton slugging average: .423

Raines runs: 1,571
Lofton runs: 1,528 (in 400 fewer games)

Raines 90-run seasons: 8
Lofton 90-run seasons: 12

Raines doubles: 430
Lofton doubles: 383 (in 400 less games)

Raines triples: 116
Lofton triples: 113

Raines rank in assists from left field: 15th
Lofton rank in assists from center field: 15th

Not in the same sentence? If they didn't have different last names I would think they are twins.

4. As far as Schilling goes, all you need to know is look at his strikeout numbers.

Schilling's best strikeout total before age of 31 was 186.
At the age of 31, he strikes out 319
At the age of 32, he strikes out 300.

Then the magic disappears.

In 1999, he strikes out 152 in 180 innings.
In 2000, he strikes out 168 in 210 innings.

Then the magic returns again..

In 2001, at the age of 35, he strikes out 293 in just 256 innings.
In 2002, at the age of 36, he strikes out 316 in 259 innings.
In 2003, at the age of 37, he strikes out 194 in 168 innings.
In 2004, at the age of 38, he strikes out 203 in 226 innings.

Basically, this guy went from an average young pitcher with glimpses of talent, to an often-injured nobody to Nolan Ryan, back to an average pitcher, back to Nolan Ryan.

Did I mention this guy looked exactly like Roger Clemens or that the seesawing of his numbers in his 30's mirror Clemens?



5. Both Franco and Reardon were better or equal to Smith in several significant categories. They were far superior in WHIP, which is perhaps the most important category of them all. Smith has been on the ballot for years garnering up to 50 percent of the vote while Franco and Reardon couldn't get the five percent to stay on more than a year. This makes no sense.

6. My main problem with Bagwell is that he has admitted to andro use which I believe to be only the tip of the iceberg with him. He went from hitting no more than 20 homers in each of his first three seasons to nailing 39 in the strike-shortened season of 1994 (he would have hit 50). McGriff was steady and consistent throughout most of his career and led the league twice with 36 homers and 35 homers when that actually meant something.

This analysis is not subject to any copyright laws and can freely be exchanged.
Reply
#29
ill get point by point at some point, but:
rod carew played more games at first than at 2nd
jackie maybe, because of his overall game *cough* defense* cough* (of course, hof isnt just about numbers, and he is one of the three most IMPORTANT players to the game)

lofton: two points: runs is a dependent stat, and lofton's teams were much better than raines. but additionally, lofton benefitted from the diluted pitching of the expansion era and also benefitted from park factors and league factors. adjusted stats should be looked at here

lots to get to later

but you shouldnt be so wary of WAR. it's just a state based on the stats you know and love. it's a concrete number. not a bible, of course, but it's just a simple way of looking at a complex equation of stats you already like
Reply
#30
No, most of the guys from the turn of last century couldn't play today. They were greats of their generation and that's why they belong in the hof. Dont have a clue what your talking about with Altuve. He is tiny, and pretty much the exception in MLB. The modern player is far bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled than players of generations past. So again, no. The much smaller, less athletic guys of yester years could not play with the modern MLB players. That's no knock on the old school guys. Things change. People and the game evolved. I never said anyone in the hall didn't belong there. They do. They are pioneers, innovators, record setters and record breakers. But as far as comparing them, there is none. Especially when you dont recognize stats like WAR or fail to recognize that the modern athlete is beyond head and shoulders in athletic ability and skill above the athletes from the turn of the last century.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)